Are You "Googleable"?

Will Richardson’s article “Footprints in the Digital Age” from Educational Leadership explains the importance of having a well based knowledge of technology.  Richardson believes it is important to post information on the web in addition to reading and searching the web.  Computers are becoming a huge influence on kids’ lives, so they need to be taught how to use them.  Richardson thinks teachers should be playing a part in helping students become engaged learners in technology.  He knows that kids learn a large amount of information outside of school, but thinks we can still improve and advance our understanding of technology with the help of teachers.  The challenge that he sees though is, “figuring out how to help students create, navigate, and grow the powerful, individualized networks of learning that bloom on the Web and helping them to do this effectively, ethically, and safely.”  Kids need to be able to navigate the Web so they can become “Googleable”.  “Googleable” is a term used by Richardson that means being worthy enough that someone will want to look you up on Google. Richardson sees that if students post information like blogging and creating their own network then they will be on their way to becoming “Googleable”. 

We live in the 2.0 web world, meaning the ordinary person is creating material to put on the Web not just reading facts.  I agree that students should know how to publish their own thoughts so they can share their opinion.  A classroom would be a great place to teach this skill.  Teachers should not spend all their teaching time focused on this topic though; one class should be devoted to teaching kids about the Web.  Although the classes would have to advance to a higher level than the typical computer class in a school I am confident we could figure out a way to make it work.  Instead of the class being centered on Power Point, Microsoft, and Excel the focus should be around the internet, blogging, chatting, having conversations online and getting a jump start on creating learning networks.  This would be an important class because the way we use the internet is changing.  The internet if often used for meeting people, consequently if you don’t have any sort of account providing you access to do this task many will not consider you “Googleable”.  How important is it to be Googled though?  To some it may be a big deal, to others they couldn’t care less, and many people are not sure how much they desire to be Googled.  I am one person who is not really sure.  I do not have a Facebook page, MySpace, or a twitter account, (like Richardson suggests having to start a personal learning network) yet I am in the Google search engine.  All of my soccer teammates have a Facebook page so my name shows up often in their comments and conversations.  My old basketball club also had a website with the players’ names on it so this also shows up when my name is searched in Google.  I think it is overrated to have a Facebook page and MySpace to be ‘known’ and Goggled.  If you are involved with activities and sports, it is most likely the activity has some sort of a website, and almost every website shows up on Google.  It may be important to be known and Googled, but there are other ways to become known. A person’s focus should not be making blogs and posting random information just so their name shows up on the Google search engine.  Blogs and post should be meaningful and made for a purpose, if you are meant to be “Googleable” then you will be.

Can Video Games Teach?

Everyone loves games, especially when they are video games.  Well what if our school education was based on video games?  Will Richardson’s article “School as Video Game” explains just this type of school.  His resources were an article in the New York Times Magazine called “Learning by Playing: Video Games in the Classroom” by Sara Corbett and a video linked with the New York Times Magazine (supplied very good information).  The one year old middle school is called Quest to Learn.  It was created by Katie Salen and is funded by the Gates Foundation.  Al Doyle one of the game design teachers said, “Schools change very slowly… and technology changes ever so fast,” explaining why the school is based around so much technology.  Salen believes that bringing a laptop into schools is not teaching kids to use technology; it takes much more than that.  Recording films, podcasts and videos, along with blogging, and playing video games are actives often included in Quest to Learn.  The video games are a way to teach the students lessons while keeping the students interested.  In the short video about Quest to Learn many students said they loved this way of teaching.  The parents agreed and said their kid was totally engaged while learning every subject.  Not only do the students play the games, they also invent their own and edit the pre-made games.  While the curriculum is based on games, the teaching does follow New York state standards.  Another very important fact mentioned was that “1-1 classroom computing isn’t the best scenario; 1-4 requires kids to work together and collaborate.”  The students attending Quest to Learn constantly work together when designing and solving games, teaching them team work.

I am not sold on the ‘school based on games’ idea.  I think group collaboration is important but designing games is not the only way to obtain that skill.  If a school is based too much on technology then kids will lose the core basics.  Now, for a high school, I definitely think a school like Quest to Learn would be a bad idea.  High school is so complex it would be too hard to base every class around games.  High school is about discovering what you want to do with your life, and what career will you head towards.  If you wanted to be a video game designer, then Quest for Life would be a great idea; but not everyone chooses that career path.  What about the people who want to be journalists, photographers, scientists, or professional athletes?  Games are not going to be the best choice for every class; I don’t even see how kids in Quest for Learn are learning writing or science by playing games.  Elementary schools could be a good choice to employ the video game learning style, but then again maybe not.  It would be good idea because little kids love playing games and it would keep them engaged.  It would be a bad idea because elementary school is where students are taught the basic learning skills; and I am not sure all those skills can be taught in games.  I also don’t understand why Quest to Learn is teaching their students to invent a video game.  When would this ability be used in life if you were not a game designer?

Obviously there are certain positive and negative aspects about this new learning style.  I have never played the video games so I have no understanding what they are like; therefore, I cannot fully state that the games are not teaching students what they need to know.  The style in Quest to Learn is very complex and still needs more research, as confirmed in the video; but when more research is done, what will they conclude?  Will this style become popular in every school?  What will be the consequences if video games run every class room?           

Google Changes Our Lives

Google is a helpful tool to most people but Nicholas Carr’s article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” challenges how helpful it really is.  There are many points in this article, but only two points stood out to me.  The first idea Nicholas Carr proposed was that the internet is changing the way we read, interpret, and gather information.  Many people can no longer withstand long readings because they find themselves getting bored.  The internet posts information to fit the needs of everyone and informs the reader quickly without multitudes of unwanted knowledge.  Researching in present day is a lot faster and effective then in the past, therefore we become impatient if the wait is too long.  The article states “they[the internet sites] supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought,” meaning that the web is changing the way we think.  The second point that struck me was mentioned at the end of the article.  It talked about how Google is a huge search engine and way smarter than people.  The greatest solution to this issue would of course have to be that human brains are changed to be more like computers.  This thought is greatly desired by Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the founders of Google who believe “… we’d all be better off” with artificial intelligence.

            I believe that this article is taking the reading and attention span issue to an extreme.  It is true that many people get their information on the internet now and it is easier to find but is it really causing us to lose focus?  I think a lot of this issue has to do with will power. If you really wanted to find good information you would sit down and read the whole long article, but many of us are too impatient or in a hurry that we just don’t have time to read. The reason I get bored or distracted when I am reading is that the writing is uninteresting or I am too tired to keep my attention span up.  Everyone is still thinking the same as they did before, but the way they obtain the facts is different.  I personally find that I can still read log articles and stories along with the short snippets on the internet.  Is this because I am a part of the younger generation and I was brought up around computers and internet search engines from the beginning?  Am I adapted to both ways?  Does this part of the article pertain to mostly older people who were not raised with search sites so it is newer to them?  Although it seems humans usually have a hard time changing, so wouldn’t it make sense that the older people would keep their ways and be able to read extensive papers and articles?  

            The last part of Carr’s article infuriated me.  Google is a smart and helpful tool but it does not have to operate our brains.  Brin states, “Certainly if you had all the world’s intelligence directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you’d be better off.”  I disagree and think that an artificial brain is the worst idea I have ever heard!  It would fix the issue of reading long articles, I guess, because you would already know the information; but the cons out weigh the pros by thousands.  If we all had artificial brain we would all be the same.  We wouldn’t have to work towards becoming what we want to be because there would be no motivation; we know everything.  There would be no experts in fixing cars, teaching math, or flying planes; anyone and everyone could have any job they wanted.  Teachers would not have a job because kids have everything imbedded into their brain already.  Everyone could fix up their house causing home repair men to be out of a job.  Do you really think artificial brains are a good idea?    Another sentence in this article that made me extremely angry was when it said “the human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and bigger hard drive.”  HUMANS ARE NOT COMPUTERS!  We invented the computer; we can’t be computers at the same time.  Humans are not outdated, we constantly learn as we go through life that’s the point.  Not everything has to be fast paced; sometimes we have to slow down and think.  Reading about people haing artificial brains made me think of the science fiction book Uglies.

            In Uglies by Scott Westerfeld the character’s brains are basically computers when they turn 16.  At this age they get an operation that ‘re-wires’ their brain.  The characters cannot think for themselves and lose all of the personality that they had before the operation.  Every person acts the same looks like everyone else.

Do you want to be like everyone else? Do you really want to know everything there is to know so you have nothing to look forward to?  Do you really want everyone to be the same person?  I certainly hope not.     

21st Century Learning

Technology seems to play a big part in our learning today, but what is the right technology? I have recently read “Technology for 21st Century Learning: Part 1’’ and “Technology for 21st Century Learning: Part 2(but is it a Literary Machine?)” both written by David Warlick. In his two blogs he ponders at the use of the iPad for learning purposes. In one school they are handing out iPads to every 8th grade student which seems unnecessary to Warlick. He has the opinion that “21st century learning has nothing to do with iPads, iPod Touches, or any piece of technology.” Learning is about the experience and the advancement to prepare students for the next years of their life. In “Technology for 21st Century Learning: Part 2” Warlick focuses more on the fact that the iPad is useful but it is not a literacy machine. He believes that the iPad is a “great device to watch” and that it is a great product for many uses, but not for learning. “… I see little indication that education was one of the aims in its [iPad] design. They didn’t build a literacy tool…” is a statement that best explains how Warlick feels.


My learning greatly depends on technology when I type papers or blog for class; not every piece of technology can perform these tasks though. The iPad does not seem like an adequate tool to use when typing papers or typing anything for that matter. You have to use your thumbs if you are holding it in your hands or try to type with it laying flat on a table (difficult). Not only do iPads seem to be a questionable educational tool, but so do many other technologies. How much technology should be used in classes? Where is the line? I am brought back to what Warlick said, “21st century learning has nothing to do with…any piece of technology.” High tech gadgets may be over pushed in that it is emphasized too much in some classes. Technology is good, sometimes great, but it does not need to be used for everything. Hand writing is still a first-class tool to have in your arsenal, along with basic math skills and researching skills. We are not going to have computers everywhere to type; kids need to know how to write. We do not carry around calculators everywhere we go; kids need to have math skills. Now, of course kids are still being taught how to write and add, and always use the mechanics in class; but what if? What if some day we depend on technology so much that later generations don’t know how to write, only type? It reminds me of I book I read call Uglies by Scott Westerfeld. In the futuristic novel only a few select characters knew how to hand write. When a secret note had to be written it was a good thing the character treasured the past and learned how to write by hand. Technology is good for many things and should not be excluded in a class room, but the classic learning styles are also fantastic.

Am I taking this too far? Can class room obsession with technology lead to basic problems in learning in the future? Maybe? Maybe not?

College Learning Today

Learning and technology go hand in hand but recently I have watched a video called Vision of Students Today by Michael Wesch that questioned technology and the college student learning environment. The video explained that on average college class rooms consist of hundreds of seats where students sit and listen to a teacher lecture. Students found that only 18% of their teachers know their name which means 82% don’t. Students spend thousands of dollars on text books every year, some of which are not even opened. College is made to prepare students for jobs and the life ahead of them but they are not practicing careers or getting firsthand experience. Michael Wesch asked the question “What are they [the students] learning sitting here?”


This video is very relevant to me and many other students that plan on attending college. What are students learning sitting in a classroom? Not very much is the answer. Students in college should be learning by doing hands on activities. Sure the occasional lecture is okay and may very well be needed for notes and preparation purposes; but every day? Even if the lecture kind of class is needed the class size should be reduced. The amount of students (one hundred fifteen on average) in a class room is way too many. A smaller class size results in teachers having a closer connection with students and a better learning environment. If only 26% of reading assignments are relevant to life then why are we doing them? The assignments given in college should have to do with the jobs students are striving for, not just to get a grade. “Some have suggested technology can save us…” but can it really? I have seen two videos now that say many students are preparing for jobs that do not exist today. The careers that are being talked about have a great chance of dealing with technology, so of course technology should be used in class – but to what extent? Books on line can save money in the long run and pictures, blogs, and quick conversations can be seen on the internet. Communicating, sharing thoughts with peers and accessing information is all very important in education and can all be done with the technology we have. What about the use of technology in class though? It can be used to take quick notes look up words and write papers, but what else is it used for? Students in Vision of Students Today said they Facebook through class and bring a laptop but don’t work on class related work. The side activities in class on lap tops are probably occurring in class because of boredom. So what is the happy medium? Students should have smaller class sizes that are more interactive and meaningful. Hands on classes should be established to build up skill in their line of preferred profession. Technology should be used, but not over used to the extent that everyone’s life is based on it. I hope that by the time I reach the age of college years these problems have been attempted to be fixed and that I will be able to learn without attending a lecture.