Needs of the 21st Century

Rigor Redefined. It’s a fun little alliteration, but one charged with meaning. This was the title of an article I read recently by Tony Wagner on the burgeoning problems facing employers and employees alike. This man has gone and spoken to several hundred leaders in various fields of work. These men and women had some very interesting things to say. They spoke about leadership, teamwork, and asking good questions to name a few things that are required in a good worker. The main point of the article however, was to illustrate that schools country-wide are not teaching these things at all, or if they are, they aren’t doing it as well as they could be.

What really struck me about this was all in the last half of the article, when Mr. Wagner relays what he saw when he sat in on classrooms all over America. It was almost as if the teachers had given up, and even when they tried to engage students all they got in reply was a disinterested mumble. However, though it was the students where not engaging themselves in the lesson, I believe that the fault is both students and teachers alike. Teachers should not simply give up, or answer the question for the student when they don’t get an answer; such a thing is not in their job description. At least, I don’t think it is. Anyway, the point is that the business world is rapidly changing to fit the needs of the 21^st century; schools will have to change as well, and fast.

Ourselves?

Michael Wesch certainly has some interesting ideas. In the video I watched for this week’s PLN called Web 2.0… The Machine is Us/ing Us.

It showed, in a very imaginative way I might add, how the web is a constantly moving and shifting, allowing us to move our way of thinking, learning, and living into a new era. Or at least, that’s what I got out of it. Maybe someone else will have a different interpretation.

            The thing is, I don’t necessarily agree with what Mr. Wesch is trying to say. Not all of it at least. Actually, it’s mostly the last two seconds that I have a problem with.  At the part when the video is just about to fade out, it leaves us with stating that we need to rethink ourselves.  Now, all the other things I get, love, government, authorship to name a few. But ourselves? Is that really what we will have to do in order to move on into this 2.0 world? If so, I fear for us. I really do. Our lives should not revolve around the online world. The things we do and say on the web affect our lives, however the web should change to suit us, not the other way around. I don’t want to trample on Mr. Wesch’s beliefs, but I’m not sure I agree with him on this one.

Hate in 140 Characters

Once upon a time, your average school yard bully had a much tougher time of it. Ever present teachers and facility members made it much more difficult to accomplish their cruel goals. This is not the case anymore. Now, a hurtful message can be transmitted across an entire school in 140 characters or less. It’s safe, instant, and due to a new controversy, possibly not even punishable. I’ve known all of this for a while now, but some new and disturbing things were brought to my attention in an article I recently read by Times magazine called “When Bullying Turns Deadly: Can it be stopped?” It spoke about the new age of bullying, and how easy it has become.

What struck me was how many schools are still using outdated tactics to combat this. Plans made in the 80s will not work as well in the new age of bullying.I think that schools country wide need to drastically change their plans for combating student harassment. If there were a much larger crack down on event the slightest hint of something hurtful being said online, it would become almost impossible to do, with so many students able to see and report it. The reason cyber bullying is so harmful would become a double edged sword. The problem with this is, what constitutes actual bullying? Often one harmful thing will be said to one student, to which the “bully” will immediately get an even more hurtful reply. Even if no retaliation is forthcoming from the victim, the argument of the definition of bullying still casts punishment into doubt. This flat out annoys the you-know-what out of me. Anything that said online and is meant to be hurtful should absolutely be considered bullying. It should be taken just as it would be if a teacher overheard it in the halls. Yes, it is true that something like calling someone a retard online might be an inside joke, or could be not be said in intended cruelty. But if there is even the slightest chance that it is something more, the full wrath of “the system” should come down on the perpetrator’s head.

Death by Aluminum

Recently, I read an article by Matthew Knight titled "Hungary's toxic sludge torrent." It spoke of how a toxic sludge recently burst through the walls of the reservoir containing it on the outskirts of Akja, a small town in Hungary. The sludge spill is being labeled as an ecological catastrophe, capable of burning trough flesh and bone. If breathed in as dust, it can also damage the lungs. 

Reading this made me think of how many times I have heard or read stories just like this one. The gulf spill, Chernobyl, and now this. The thing is, the damage from these disasters never affects those who are responsible for them. I'm not talking about loosing money or respect, I'm talking about people loosing their entire lives to these terrible events. Many people have had to evacuate, and they will probably never be able to come back, seeing as how the cleanup will take at least a year. Even if they do return, what will they find? A crumbling wreck of what was once their life. I believe that we must truly step up  our protocols for cleaning up after these disasters, and more importantly to make sure that they never happen.      

The Mighty Interwebs

            If there is one thing I have learned over the last seven weeks of school, it is that the educational world is changing, shifting away from old linear ways of teaching and into a new networking style of thought. No article that I have read thus far has brought this fact to light like the article “Footprints in the Digital Age” by William Richardson. In it, he speaks about how the Internet is starting to change education as we know it.  

            Now. What do I think about this? Frankly, I don’t even know where to start. His writing was chock full of intriguing information. I suppose one thing that did stand out more than the rest was when he stated that our teachers will be our “colearners” as student and teacher alike stand together singing Kumbayah, creating our own learning networks and figuring out how to use them. Nice image huh? Of course I added on most of it, but he did say in the article that teacher and student would have to learn this at the same time. With the teachers in the same boat as us, things would go much more smoothly in class. I do like the Kumbaya image though. Another thing he touched upon was how a little girl named Laura Stockman turned a small gesture into a massive, worldwide movement of goodwill. After her grandfather passed away, she wanted to do one good thing a day until Christmas. This soon got global attention. Now our little Laura has collected books for libraries, and donated thousands of dollars, among other things. This just goes to show how such a little thing can become so much more under the right circumstances. And that my friends, is the power of the interwebs.

Frankie the Frankenfish

Picture yourself at the supermarket trying to find something good for dinner. You might see some delicious looking salmon; you make the purchase and drive home to have your meal. The thing is, two years down the road you may have just picked out a genetically altered fish designed to grow quickly and so, produce more offspring. This was the issue brought up in the article I recently read, called “Modified Salmon: Miracle Food or "Frankenfish"?” by CBS news. It called attention to the first ever GE (genetically altered) animal soon to be approved by the FDA for human consumption. However, this so called “frankenfish” is facing lots of opposition from critics, many stating that it could cause new allergies and potentially decimate the wild salmon population.

            I thought that this was a very good example of a 21^st century issue. You would never have seen this on a headline a mere ten years ago. I believe that this is one of the main reasons that many people are so opposed to having an altered salmon on their supermarket shelves. The idea is so new right now that no one quite knows what to do with it. Those opposed to the frankenfish do have some other very valid points to consider as well. For example, if any of the GE salmon escape into the wild, their ability to grow much faster than the other salmon (frankenfish are altered to produce their growth hormone throughout the year, unlike wild salmon) will put the already threatened species on the fine line of extinction. However, it is my personal opinion that these fish should be put on store shelves. The FDA says that, other than growing quickly, the fish are exactly the same as normal salmon. The one and only problem I would have is that the GE fish would not be marked separately, meaning that consumers would have no idea if the fish they just chose was not a normal one. I think we have the right to know the difference, and be able to choose which one we want. After all, some years down the road there may be many more extreme GE food products lining the shelves of Kingsoopers, with vastly different genetic traits than the wild members of their species. The American people should be able to make a decision between the two, especially if their religion is in any way involved. But again, I believe that poor little frankenfish should be allowed on store shelves. Who knows? This could be the start of something amazing years down the road.

Irreversible Change

I love the internet. Who doesn’t? It allows us to pull vast amounts of information from it in mere seconds. We can learn faster than ever before. But is that such a good thing? This point was brought up in an article I recently read called “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” by Nicholas Carr. In it, he spoke about how he can not perform the same kinds of “deep reading” that he once was able to do. How his attention wanders very quickly and how he now tends to skim lengthy articles. Carr blames this on the internet, and how it encourages the reader to bounce around, from article to article.

The funny thing is, I noticed this a long time ago. When I was about eleven I realized that I was half way through a book and I didn’t know which character was the main one. At the time, I chalked it up to being tired (it was late) but now I realize the truth. At eleven was about the time that I started to use the internet much more. My school was assigning many of its homework assignments online as well. However, is this such a bad thing? Yes, we may not be digging into what we are reading as much, but at the same time we are still learning it. What would have taken an hour to drive down to the library and find can now be typed into Google and learned in seconds. We may not think about it as much, but we still know it, and learn much more of it. I don’t know. Maybe I’m just reflecting the thoughts of the younger generation. I had to notice, did Carr talk to any under twenty’s? Of course not. Why would he? We probably do not have the life experience, in is opinion. However I think he should have gotten some of our opinions just for variety’s sake. After all, the new generation has grown up on the web. Some of us I’m sure have never understood such alien concepts as “deep thought.” Perhaps 50 or so years down the road none of us will even know what that is. When all is said and done, we may all have very different opinions on the subject. But no matter how you look at it, the internet is not going to change. The old days of actually thinking about what we are reading is slowly but surely fading away, whether we want it to or not.