So after reading through his comments in the roundtable discussion, does anyone else feel like Marc Prensky and Eisenstein would get along? At least in the sense that they both seem to be pretty firmly convinced of the superiority of their own approach to anything.

I actually found Mr. Prensky's critique of the format of the program really interesting, particularly in light of some of the criticisms raised about the possible detrimental effects of the digital lifestyle. I was really interested in the idea that multitasking has changed the way students write, that they struggle with writing papers that contain a connecting thread, instead they bounce from idea to idea in each paragraph. Mr. Prensky criticized the program for not laying out their arguments in a sort of issue, pro/con and then new issue format. To me, that seems like a much more old school way of organizing an argument, conversely the more loose organizational style the documentary actually used seems to be more in line with the way multitaskers think, jumping from idea to idea and then back and assuming that everyone is following the logical leaps. Of course, I suppose you could also argue that by breaking the issues up into smaller chunks of pro positions, con positions and then you move on you are also creating something that is more in line with the attention span of the multitasking generation. I also found it interesting because it breaks what is clearly a complex issue into a binary of positive and negative. I think that goes against everything we've discussed about multiliteracy and media literacy and the value that it has for students.

Over the course of the last year, I've become increasingly convinced that media and technology and the behaviors that accompany the use of them are neither bad nor good, it merely is. It is our responsibility as educators to find ways to use it in positive ways and to help students to become aware of the ways they interact with media. We should educate them so that they can make informed decisions about their media choices. This fits rather conveniently into our discussion of the necessary elements of multiliteracy education. We must provide students with opportunities to practice and transform knowledge but we need to make sure we are giving them the critical framing and overt instruction, without all four elements the strategy is much weaker.

Reading Response 5--At War with Multitasking

I really enjoyed watching Digital Nation, and I am happy to say that because I had to watch it online but wanted to watch it on my TV, I wasn't doing anything else while I watched it. As I write this response, I am not listening to music (although that's mostly because it's 6:30 in the morning...), and I do not have my email up in another browser. I am single-tasking, which I think is a vocabulary word that needs to be introduced into our society; I think it can be good to multi-task (clearly lots of scholars agree), but if this is the skill that comes innately, then we need to concentrate on learning how to single-task as well. Obviously there are many issues to engage with in this film (many of the things they talk about hit very close to home for me: my first two years of high school I practically lived online; my dad used to fly those predator drones, and was actually one of the engineers who helped figure out how to equip them with missiles (a fact that simultaneously makes me proud and sad)), but in the spirit of single-tasking (and in not writing an 800 word response...), I'm just sticking to this one.

I graduated in 2007, and applied to this program in 2009. At that time, I was anxious about the application because I really felt like I had become stupid in those intervening two years; even though I was teaching a class at BYU in that time, I didn't challenge myself with rigorous reading, I didn't have intellectual conversations at the level that I did as an undergrad. I stopped requiring myself to sit down and read a text, and I definitely never wrote an essay for fun. I started engaging with media WAY more than I did as an undergrad (when I did the media log assignment in a class as an undergraduate, I often talked about films, short stories, or plays that I encountered in other classes because I didn't have TIME to seek out other media forms), but I wasn't engaging with it on the same level. I went for quantity interactions, not quality (although Michel Gondry argues that quantity is better than quality because quality doesn't last...). I became more of a multitasker, and even though it meant that I was doing more, I actually do think it made me less capable of focusing on tasks for an extended period of time.

I think we need to stop asking the question of whether or not we need to be able to multitask; clearly there are times in our lives when this is required of us. I think we do need to honestly look at data that tells us that when we multitask we are less effective at each of the activities we are doing, and decide in which situations we can live with this reality. When I'm checking my email and watching American Idol while making dinner, I don't think that my being slightly distracted has too great of an impact (as long as I don't burn what I'm cooking). The degraded quality of my work in this scenario doesn't have super high stakes. However, when I'm checking my email while trying to understand Stan Brakhage, I have a bit of a problem. We need to help students understand that there are times to multitask and times to single-task, and I think that if we approach them in a way that 1)brings the fact of their multitasking out in the open (instead of ignoring it like I am occasionally inclined to do) and 2)values multitasking as a process, that we could maybe make some sort of headway.

Reading Response 5

Some aspects of Digital Nation hit a little close to home. Listening to the professors talk about the lack of through-lines in student's papers, reminded me of my own writing. I consistently write paragraphs of what I see as pretty great ideas and then (for seemingly inexplicable reasons) move on to the next paragraph with a completely different idea, expecting the professor to either follow my train of thought or accept each paragraph or thought on its own.

I was surprised with the gaming section of the program. I never considered those who play massive online roll playing games as being so connected. We have read many articles documenting the positives of online interactions and socializing, but I never considered the whole reason for getting online and playing the game was the urge to connect with others.

One woman at the Blizzard Entertainment party said something like, "People who never play online games will never understand how close you can get with someone you have never seen." My sarcastic question is "why would you want to?"

It seems a little ridiculous on one hand to be chatting online with someone on the other side of the world, when there are people all around. Like that young Korean boy who wouldn't carry a conversation with his mother, but would rather be on the internet playing a game. So, for this example, if we apply the ideas of the creator of Second Life and solve alienation with more technology, then we need to get his mom on the computer to have dinner with him virtually.

They suggest that the game doesn't isolate you, but it gives you a new way to be intimate. They claim to be rewriting the rules of human interaction. I agree that they are giving you new ways to be interact with other and I am a big fan of that, but unfortunately, these forms of interaction are replacing other forms of connectivity. I love to text, but I'm not going to stop talking to my wife because I think it might be easier to just text her.

The internet becomes frightening when it destroys and replaces life. It is beautiful when it adds to our current, healthy life a new layer of connectivity and social interaction.


we are together on the internet, you're not alone anymore

"Reading" Response 5-Digital Nation

First of all, can I just say that “Digital Nation” surprised me. While I was expecting a technology-heavy exploration of how digital media has incorporated itself into our lives, I really wasn’t expecting the relatively cautious and very two-sided approach to the pros and cons of life in a digital world. I think that oftentimes people choose a “camp” when it comes to innovation and progress, and it’s sometimes hard to remember that most of us are trying to reside in a world that is somewhere in the middle. For me, this recognition first came when Rachel Dretzin expressed her own uncertainty regarding digital media, especially with regards to her own kids. Again, as I was expecting a very blatant “GO TECHNOLOGY” type of presentation, the fact that the producer/director was unsure herself was refreshing.

As I watched “Digital Nation,” there was one specific conversation that stood out to me, probably because it is the same question that I have asked myself as I have interacted with my own students. After showing some of the results of research regarding multi-tasking and how those who think they’re wonderful at it actually aren’t, Douglas Rushkoff talks to Rachel as they are walking down the street. He says, “We need to know if we’re tinkering with something more essential than we realize…Are we changing what it means to be a human being by using all this stuff?”

We talked a little about this in class last week in regards to games and learning—whether gaming culture is, in fact, altering the learning styles of our students, if the beings that are now sitting in our classrooms are fundamentally different due to the games and other technology that they interact with. I, personally, would say that, as people are a sum total of their biology plus their experiences, yes, technology has altered people, which is why Media Literacy Education is, I feel, so important.

As I was looking through the Core Principles in relationship to “Digital Nation,” I think that many of the “areas of uncertainty” within the program could be addressed, or at least smoothed over a bit, by incorporating and institutionalizing the Core Principles. In particular, Core Principle 1—that Media Literacy Education requires active inquiry and critical thinking about media—is HUGE. I know it sounds a bit simplistic, but I think that if we all were a bit more critical (in an analytical, not a negative, way) as teachers, students, parents and children, many of the “issues” that arise with digital media could be resolved or even avoided. For example—the kids who’ve died in Korea during gaming tournaments? I’m of the opinion that THAT could have been avoided with a bit of logical reasoning.

Reading Response 5 - Marc Prensky

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/learning/literacy/do-books-have-a-future.html?play

While I was reviewing the interviews online, this gentleman totally threw me for a loop when he, essentially, said that the written word was all but dead. “You don’t have to read them to take in what’s in a book…The stuff that’s worth reading, that really matters, is very small…There are very few books that you have to have read…Video is the new text.” Initially, I had an emotional response of, “What the heck?!” This is why I’m going to write based around him. I feel compelled to. “Books are not as good as the internet for contemporary learning.” Whoa! “We accelerate; we do that shorter and more intensely…”

Okay, so he’s ALL about intense experience in short spans. “Almost every book I read I wish were shorter…There’s so much that you don’t want in the stuff you read…” He’s okay, however, if you WANT to learn in a larger format, but “you have to discover that for yourself.” He doesn’t believe that we should be forced to learn any more than we need to learn from any book. If we want more, we can get more, otherwise why? Also, there is the idea that guided learning is the first thing, desire is the second. We have things that teachers need us/want us to learn – that can be pinpointed – (not unlike Darl leading us through “Birth of a Nation”) and if we want to visit the full text, we can. Is this necessarily intelligent thinking? I know that Mark Bauerlein doesn’t necessarily believe so, but then, he’s not necessarily part of the pro-digital media realm either. The two camps are very interesting. For the most part, watching these leading experts in the digital media, media literacy fields almost seems to dictate the need to be in one of the two factions: enthusiast or cynic. Henry Jenkins is fascinating because, if you go to his site, he seeks to be hip: “The first thing you are going to discover about me, oh reader of this blog, is that I am prolific as hell. The second is that I am also long-winded as all get out. As someone famous once said, ‘I would have written it shorter, but I didn't have enough time’” (http://henryjenkins.org/aboutme.html). This is his attempt to be part of the crowd that he is advocating by speaking a similar language. James Paul Gee doesn’t put up this kind of pretense, but is nonetheless not unlike Jenkins.

After Mr. Prensky caught my attention, I had to go and look him up online.

http://www.marcprensky.com/experience/default.asp

Okay, Mr. Prensky is a triple Master’s degree: MA in Theatre, MAT in Teaching (from Yale) and a MBA from Harvard. This is not a man who is necessarily illiterate or unintelligent. He also has taught in public education, performed in music and theatre, helped plan television programming and consulted in film investments, been involved in technology research, e-learning programs, and most recently is developing training games for corporations. He has a wide breadth of experience, knowledge, and interests – which would make him necessarily multimodal because of his multiple disciplines – so why would he be advocating that we read less, and engage with smaller bits that are “more important”? Granted, my upbringing is in reading books and I believe in reading thoroughly – cover-to-cover. For some of what he says, this makes sense, but what is Mr. Prensky leaving behind? What is happening if we are being possibly overabundant advocates of the new media that we neglect some of our past heritage of learning? He feels that getting a book is getting information that is 3 years old when we can have an author’s thoughts from 3 days ago quicker through the internet – is that necessarily better?