Change is something that is hard to cope with. Whether its changing from a hydrocarbon based economy or changing the style of glasses that one wears, it naturally creates feelings of uneasiness. Both Dana and Andrew's blogs deal with change and a departure from old methods. Although this can sometimes have negative consequences, I think the examples they discuss are not as harmful as they imply. So...
Dana, I'm sorry but I must disagree. In your blog you mention that modern forms of communication have taken away your ability to communicate. This paradox does not make sense to me, although it does bring up an interesting question: What is "communication?"
To you and to many people, "communication" seems to be limited to hand written or verbally exchanged words, and all other forms are inferior or less eloquent. However, the logic behind this assumption is fatally flawed; these methods are certainly two of the older methods of communication, but does this make them more qualified? If you think hard, you may remember that there was once a period in the history of the world when there were no telephones, or even telegrams (sorry that was kind of sassy). Long distance communication consisted of two methods--letters and face to face conversations. Now when the phone was invented, was humanity robbed of a certain skill or talent that they once had before? Yes, the pony express and strong walking legs. Still, the cost of losing these skills is greatly outweighed by the benefit of instant communication.
To you and to many people, "communication" seems to be limited to hand written or verbally exchanged words, and all other forms are inferior or less eloquent. However, the logic behind this assumption is fatally flawed; these methods are certainly two of the older methods of communication, but does this make them more qualified? If you think hard, you may remember that there was once a period in the history of the world when there were no telephones, or even telegrams (sorry that was kind of sassy). Long distance communication consisted of two methods--letters and face to face conversations. Now when the phone was invented, was humanity robbed of a certain skill or talent that they once had before? Yes, the pony express and strong walking legs. Still, the cost of losing these skills is greatly outweighed by the benefit of instant communication.
Now, after the invention of email and computers, people are complaining that we are losing the ability to physically write. This may be true, but this isn't a viable argument against using emails or word processors. When ball point pens and pencils were invented, I'm sure that there were people who complained about the tragedy of losing the ability to write with nibs. Does that mean we shouldn't have graduated to portable writing devices that don't need ink wells? My drum teacher was once complaining to me about the fact that marching bands still exist (they ruin a percussionist's technique, so he is very opposed to them). When he asked me why schools still have them, I replied, "They've always had marching bands." His response was, "Yeah, but we used to 'always' have buggy whips. Does that mean you should have a buggy whip?"
What he was trying to say is that traditions should not be confused with standards. Change is inevitable and should be embraced, whether it is in communication or education. Andrew's teachers defined us as the "sesame street" generation because we want our education to be entertaining. My response is, why shouldn't it be entertaining? I'm sure if I asked that teacher who his most memorable teacher was, it wouldn't be the professor who was able to "purify" his teachings by removing their entertainment value. Interactive material may be more memorable, and therefore a more efficient method of teaching. Professor Bump provides an excellent example in his essay "Left vs. Right Side of the Brain." While describing a website that combines Dante's writings with images of hell and audio clips of medieval Italian, he states that "Integrating the video clips and the voices in this way, with the images and texts, results in a more powerful and complete reading experience" (X 110). If this new method of experiencing the writings of Dante results in more engaged students, why shouldn't it become the new standard for education?
What he was trying to say is that traditions should not be confused with standards. Change is inevitable and should be embraced, whether it is in communication or education. Andrew's teachers defined us as the "sesame street" generation because we want our education to be entertaining. My response is, why shouldn't it be entertaining? I'm sure if I asked that teacher who his most memorable teacher was, it wouldn't be the professor who was able to "purify" his teachings by removing their entertainment value. Interactive material may be more memorable, and therefore a more efficient method of teaching. Professor Bump provides an excellent example in his essay "Left vs. Right Side of the Brain." While describing a website that combines Dante's writings with images of hell and audio clips of medieval Italian, he states that "Integrating the video clips and the voices in this way, with the images and texts, results in a more powerful and complete reading experience" (X 110). If this new method of experiencing the writings of Dante results in more engaged students, why shouldn't it become the new standard for education?
Instant communication is not only convenient; it is effective. In Stephen Coveys The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, he states that "Synergy works...it is effectiveness in an interdependent reality...[and] the development of unity and creativity with other human beings." (Covey 283) Although this probably isn't referring to the synergy of texting our friends about an attractive classmate, the principle is the same. If we are connected we can be more effective and accomplish more. "The Machine is Us/ing Us" isllustrates how truly connected we can become. The video may be somewhat contrived, but it does have an interesting point: the internet is a powerful force that has amazing potential. So, what if we lose some of the abilities we have now? When we're old we probably won't have the nicest cursive, but we'll be able to text 50 wpm. Just imagine texting that fast...
"Do u want 2 go 2 dinner at 4:30?"
I'll close by saying that I do think that handwritten letters are definitely more meaningful to receive. I think education is better if its fun but not pointless if it isn't. And if I couldn't text for a day, I wouldn't mind chatting with all of my friends by telephone. Still, I'm not going to get too upset if the standards I have now change.
No comments:
Post a Comment