Posts Tagged ‘art’
I chanced upon this display in NIE along the stretch where those that specialize in the visual arts occasionally display their work.
The statement was “Do you know that too much use of technology decays your ietnllginece (sic)”.
I know that the word “intelligence” was misspelt for effect and the statement was designed to provoke. Here are a few of my responses.
My first reaction was: Did you know that if you spell check, you might come across as more intelligent? Punctuation also helps the statement be read as a question. But that reaction adds little value to the conversation and merely indicates that I did not “get” the point.
My second reaction was that a more reasoned statement might read: Thoughtless use of technology might make you seem less intelligent. But a statement like that might not tickle the cerebral cortices as much.
What worries me is student teachers who see the piece and read the statement as fact instead of a point of discussion. I think this form of negative technology determinism is frighteningly common. It is our responsibility as educators to think, do, and show otherwise instead of adding fuel to this destructive and retarding fire.
One other thought. What if the art work was interactive? What if you could visit a URL or scan a QR code to tweet your opinion or leave your thoughts in an online space?
What if we actually used technology to not just expand the reach of art (or any other subject), but also to increase our collective intelligence by sharing and discussing?
Who would have thought that you could recreate famous works of art with irons and sheets?
On a totally unrelated note, I am in Wellington, New Zealand for the ASCILITE conference.
I will try to blog while I am in the land of hobbits.
I will also leave photos in Posterous, but expect a delay because that service suffers from hiccups. I do not know why I stick with it…
I recall the first time I was asked to define “pedagogy”.
It was not when I was a teacher trainee. It was not even while I was a teacher. It was when I was pursuing a Masters overseas 13 years ago and when I was no longer a classroom teacher.
Perhaps some wisdom had distilled from my experience as a teacher and so I defined pedagogy as the science and art of teaching. My instructor told me that she had never heard any of her students define it like that and asked if she could borrow that definition.
Here is what I really meant by the science and art of teaching. By science, I meant learning, applying, and testing theoretical principles much as a scientist would but with the classroom as an experimental laboratory.
By art, I simply meant practice, practice, practice. Not practice makes perfect as there was no perfect teacher. Practice as in honing the craft of teaching much like a painter or sculptor might get better by painting or sculpting.
That is why I like the video above that I discovered recently. It has helped me push my understanding of pedagogy one step further.
I liked how the narrator, Daniel Willingham, referred to the science of teaching as providing boundaries or markers of what teachers should do or could do [5min 54 sec mark].
So if you want a child to remember something, s/he should practice because that is a basic tenet of how we learn. The child could be drilled, play a game, or use mnemonics to remember. Those are just a few of many options.
That is why I like the analogy that teaching is like architecture. In designing buildings, an architect must operate by the rules of physics (should do), but s/he can also get creative (could do). And so creative sometimes that the rules seem to break.
The difference between drill-and-practice and honing your art: A dash of creativity.