Thanks for doing YOUR post!

I don’t know if we can blame the kids for this. Is it their fault that they’re being exposed to technology-driven learning environments that better engage them than many adult teachers can? We can’t put the video game genie back in the bottle…

I don’t blame teachers either (well, at least not the ones that are trying to provide engaging learning environments for kids but still are struggling against what kids expect due to their continual media immersion). It’s the worksheet teachers and/or the teachers that are just ‘doing the time.’ Granted, these are relatively few in number (although still far, far too many), but I believe that they’re the ones far more likely to complain about kids not being engaged. Kids credit teachers that are trying.

I tend to be wary of holding kids ‘accountable’ for their performance and/or behavior, just as I generally tend to be wary of holding teachers accountable for the same. I think the lesson from Edward Deming is that blaming individuals for their poor performance doesn’t make much sense most of the time because something like 90% of student / employee problems can be traced to dysfunction in the larger system. In other words, if the system’s broken, don’t blame the people who work / learn in it.

Ultimately this is a leadership issue. The responsibility lies on the leaders for ensuring that all teachers are doing their utmost to engage kids and for ensuring that modern pedagogical techniques and technologies are being employed to maintain student interest and success.

There’s no one to blame here (as long as everyone is trying). Rather than pointing fingers at teachers or students, I’d like to see us focus on looking forward and devising solutions. If we employ that lens, the question is not “Who’s responsible for ensuring student engagement: students or teachers?” but rather “How can students and educators work together to create engaging and energizing learning environments?”

Are we asking too much of teachers when we expect them to grab student attention like mass media and/or video games? In other words, is it an impossible task? And, if so, what does that mean for the future of K-12 instruction? And, if not, what does that mean too for how we do things in schools?

The article is mostly built on Dewey’s notion that “to be playful and serious at the same time is possible, and it defines the ideal mental condition.” Also, Mann writes that play and entertainment are not the same thing. “Play is active, entertainment is passive…” So, to those who say that it is not part of the job description of teachers to be entertainers, I would completely agree. But, it is in the job description to make sure they are engaged in active learning.

I might like Alfie Kohn even better: “I’ll tell you something I’ve noticed from visiting a lot of American schools: the more traditional the teacher, the grimmer the mood. These classrooms don’t always resemble Dickensian factories, mind you, but if you watch the kids’ faces (or the teachers’), the phrase ‘joy of discovery’ probably won’t leap to mind. And here’s the interesting part: the people who defend the Old School usually don’t deny that this is true, and they don’t even seem to mind. Sometimes they actually take a perverse pride in presiding over (or sending their kids to) this bleak house because for them that constitutes proof that real education is happening. No pain, no gain.”

Am I the only one noticing that this is a person who writes and sells game based learning for a living? Of course he is sounding the alarm, it helps move his product.

This is NOT a new problem, it’s just that we could “afford” to have 50% of our students drop out of high school before WWII. I have no problem with perfecting my craft and making it more engaging to students, but excuse me if I question this particular messengers motives/objectivity.

Can Prensky’s message be valid even though he also works in the area of gaming? Can we only talk credibly about areas in which we don’t stand to financially benefit? If I quit being a professor and become a full-time consultant because I thought I could better help schools with technology leadership issues that way, would that ruin my credibility and/or impair my knowledge base?

Does the fact that Prensky’s message about the value of educational gaming is reinforced by numerous other credible individuals and organizations, including professors and scientific organizations, support the validity of his facts (if not some of his rhetoric)? Do we have to cite all these folks every time or can we just mention Prensky?