Tag Archives: learning

Does the Internet Make You Smarter? – Nice article in the WSJ

Does the Internet Make You Smarter?

Amid the silly videos and spam are the roots of a new reading and writing culture, says Clay Shirky.

Digital media have made creating and disseminating text, sound, and images cheap, easy and global. The bulk of publicly available media is now created by people who understand little of the professional standards and practices for media.

Instead, these amateurs produce endless streams of mediocrity, eroding cultural norms about quality and acceptability, and leading to increasingly alarmed predictions of incipient chaos and intellectual collapse.

But of course, that’s what always happens. Every increase in freedom to create or consume media, from paperback books to YouTube, alarms people accustomed to the restrictions of the old system, convincing them that the new media will make young people stupid. This fear dates back to at least the invention of movable type.

DICE 2010: “Design Outside the Box” Presentation Videos

Interesting view of the future. Common objects and activities from a gaming perspective. You can hate it or love it, but this is a likely future, at least in some respects.

I particularly like his comment near the very end. He wonders whether this is going to just be a marketers utopia or whether (in addition) it will cause people to try to be better people. You often don’t hear the latter, but I think this is equally important and even more so for educators.

Bruce Lee on Simplicity – garry’s posterous or Bruce Lee on Teaching (ht @daylemajor)

Click to view large

In Jeet Kune Do, one does not accumulate but eliminate. It is not daily increase but daily decrease. The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity… It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. It is the halfway cultivation that leads to ornamentation. Jeet Kune-Do is basically a sophisticated fighting style stripped to its essentials.

Art is the expression of the self. The more complicated and restricted the method, the less the opportunity for expression of one’s original sense of freedom. Though they play an important role in the early stage, the techniques should not be too mechanical, complex or restrictive. If we cling blindly to them, we shall eventually become bound by their limitations. Remember, you are expressing the techniques and not doing the techniques. If somebody attacks you, your response is not Technique No.1, Stance No. 2, Section 4, Paragraph 5. Instead you simply move in like sound and echo, without any deliberation. It is as though when I call you, you answer me, or when I throw you something, you catch it. It’s as simple as that – no fuss, no mess. In other words, when someone grabs you, punch him. To me a lot of this fancy stuff is not functional.

A martial artist who drills exclusively to a set pattern of combat is losing his freedom. He is actually becoming a slave to a choice pattern and feels that the pattern is the real thing. It leads to stagnation because the way of combat is never based on personal choice and fancies, but constantly changes from moment to moment, and the disappointed combatant will soon find out that his ‘choice routine’ lacks pliability. There must be a ‘being’ instead of a ‘doing’ in training. One must be free. Instead of complexity of form, there should be simplicity of expression.
To me, the extraordinary aspect of martial arts lies in its simplicity. The easy way is also the right way, and martial arts is nothing at all special; the closer to the true way of martial arts, the less wastage of expression there is.

In building a statue, a sculptor doesn’t keep adding clay to his subject. Actually, he keeps chiselling away at the inessentials until the truth of its creation is revealed without obstructions. Thus, contrary to other styles, being wise in Jeet Kune-Do doesn’t mean adding more; it means to minimize, in other words to hack away the unessential.
It is not daily increase but daily decrease; hack away the unessential.

This post was for the design realm, but it took on new meaning when referenced to teaching, particularly post-method perspectives. Following passage was particularly interesting.


A martial artist who drills exclusively to a set pattern of combat is losing his freedom. He is actually becoming a slave to a choice pattern and feels that the pattern is the real thing. It leads to stagnation because the way of combat is never based on personal choice and fancies, but constantly changes from moment to moment, and the disappointed combatant will soon find out that his ‘choice routine’ lacks pliability. There must be a ‘being’ instead of a ‘doing’ in training. One must be free. Instead of complexity of form, there should be simplicity of expression.

Over-reliance on set methods strangles creativity. Unfortunately, this is now how teachers are currently trained. Most teacher trainers understand the need to vary approaches (yes, I’m using these interchangeably. Don’t freak out) and move beyond method, but the tendency is for teacher education classes to focus on distinct methods. I understand why. We want to provide a foundation for teachers to base their practice on. The problem is that this presentation of methods ends up convincing students that they have to pick one (usually the one the teacher is pushing most–we all have biases).

The end result is batches of teachers who strive to stick to a method even in the face of realities that suggest changes in method, or strategies. Dogma is dangerous: dogma is stubborn, dogma doesn’t bend, and dogma unrealistic.

We need to focus more on the art of teaching than the practice. Pedagogical ecology (Daniel & Poole, 2009) is probably a better approach to both teaching, not only in teacher education but the broad range of teaching and training contexts.

On Language – Social – NYTimes.com – and a short post on language change and variety

Leslie David

In our Web-driven era of social media and social networking, we are all learning more sophisticated ways to “socialize” that go far beyond cocktail-party chatter. But being social in the 21st century can sometimes be downright unsettling.

Consider the anxieties over a linguistic trend that The Wall Street Journal’s Overheard column expressed last month. “A new catchphrase in meetings is ‘let me socialize that,’ ” The Journal wrote. “No, they aren’t suggesting they will see if they can get a government bailout. Or introducing some left-wing political theories to business. Instead the phrase means ‘I’ll discuss this with my colleagues and circle back to you.’ ”

Fun (for the linguist in me) treatment of the word “social”.

The changing uses of words makes it difficult to teach language. Regional, age, and SES differences (to name a few) all influence language use. This is why learners fluent in English can have such a difficult time communicating at a fast food restaurant, in the dorm with undergraduates, or with any language variation outside of the standards they have had exposure to (difficulties many native speakers face as well).

How can I teach a language that is always changing? As with most teachers of English, I focus on academic language that, while it changes over time, is more much resilient to change than less formal domains. I fall back on standards (as ephemeral as they are) to provide a foundation.

The foundation is not enough, though. Standards create expectations that, when challenged, cause communication to falter. This is where variety comes in. Language variety increases exposure to language outside of your classroom standards. It’s faster/slower, drawl/clipped, enunciated/mumbled, male/female, formal/informal, and all the other wonders of language variety. Working outside of your classroom standards can encourage skills to process non-standard varieties, thus providing tools to learners to interact with the greater world of English speakers.

Most of us in EFL contexts are preparing learners who are less likely to interact in English with someone who sounds just like us than they are to encounter a fast network of global English speakers. In my neck of the woods, Korea, learners are more likely use English with Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese, Taiwanese, Malaysian, and Thai speakers of English than they are with Americans, Canadians, and speakers from the other (preferred) English-speaking countries. The reality is that we do them a disservice if we teach them otherwise.

This post went way off topic, but I’m procrastinating, so whatcha’ gonna do? 😉

How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School

How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School

How cool is this? Not just this book, but the system supplying it. The National Academies Press (http://www.nap.edu) provides thousands of books like this for free online and sells PDFs. They provide this widget to embed the books in a website as well (not too cool, but something to embed). So, if people don’t mind reading on their computer screen, this isn’t a bad option.

Media_httpimagesnaped_iofhm
Media_httpimagesnaped_iobku
Media_httpimagesnaped_wvgcf
Read this FREE online!
Full Book | Podcast

Scaffolding

We often talk about supporting students in their learning process. This support is primarily considered scaffolding. This is important for all teachers to understand, particularly language teachers in immersion contexts.

Below is a little something that I wrote recently on scaffolding to justify including it in a workshop for content-area teachers who are learning to work with English language learners.

Scaffolding<o:p></o:p>

Sheltered instruction is often thought of as sheltering ELLs from their native speaking counterparts (Freeman & Freeman, 1988); however, this view has evolved significantly over the years in include language and content support in a variety of contexts (Grabe & Stoller, 1997). Sheltered instruction is what should take place in CBI contexts where the focus is on content rather than language. Sheltered instruction is the supporting of ELL’s content-area learning (Bunch, Abram, Lotan, & Valdés, 2001; Short, 1991). This can be done in many ways, as described above in the CBI continuum. However, the general focus is on scaffolding instruction to the extent that learners can participate and learn in content-area classes.<o:p></o:p>

Sheltered instruction provides support for ELLs through the use of scaffolding (Antón, 1999; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976), which aims to make input comprehensible (Krashen, 1982). This is similar to Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD), “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86). Relating this back to Krashen’s (1982) i+1 concept (comprehensible input), learners are provided with input just a little above their “actual developmental level” (Vygotsky’s terminology) in order for them to advance to their “potential developmental level.”<o:p></o:p>

Scaffolding can take on many forms. Brush and Saye (2002) make the distinction between “hard” and “soft” scaffolding. Hard scaffolding is the purposeful, planned use of materials that are designed to support learners. These materials can range from texts (e.g., books, notes, etc.) to audio/video (e.g., lecture recordings, podcasts with a variety of content, etc.) to graphical/visual (e.g., animation, illustrations, models, etc.). Soft scaffolding is the dynamic feedback provided to learners by instructors or peers (de Guerrero & Villamil, 2000; Ewald, 2005; Salomon & Perkins, 1998) that addresses perceived gaps in understanding or performance.<o:p></o:p>

Additionally, both soft and hard scaffolding can take on different general forms when working with ELLs, including: cognitive/conceptual (Ausubel, 1968 cited in; O’Neill, 1988; Charles M. Reigeluth, 1999), linguistic (Lam & Wong, 2000; Mohan & Beckett, 2003; Ulanoff & Pucci, 1999), cultural (Risko & Walker-Dalhouse, 2007), and affective (Rosiek, 2003). Cognitive/conceptual scaffolding is the provision of support focusing on cognitive strategies and metacognitive skills. Linguistic scaffolding is the provision of language-related support such as structural, lexical, and pragmatic. Cultural scaffolding supports understandings of and connections between diverse cultural backgrounds, both for learners and guides (teachers other students) towards the “other” culture(s). Affective scaffolding supports the emotional/psychological needs of the learners (e.g., anxiety, self-efficacy, and self-esteem).<o:p></o:p>

%d bloggers like this: