Chapter one notes

You can lead a horse to water….

The READ/WRITE web offers plenty of exciting educational options and enrichment, but as I read Richardson’s opening chapter, I kept thinking that it all seems a little like communism—a Utopian theory that doesn’t mesh with current realities and human nature.  There is plenty of great enriching content, but getting kids to find and choose that content, and actually engage it thoughtfully is no different on the web than in a library or the classroom.

My greatest fear is that the amount of time we put into creating that content, or even links to that content,  sucks too much from the extremely limited time we have to do our jobs.  I spend anywhere from one to three hours almost daily on my teacherweb site—so I see utility in the web.  Some students use it well, but I question myself almost daily about whether I am getting the most bang for the buck.  Would the motivated students who seek out and use the web content do equally well without it because they are motivated?  What about the kids who never access the content –no matter how many bells and whistles are attached to it—precisely because it is school related and therefore not worth an extra click even when they are already logged on.?

Web value—quantity over quality?

While Richardson does attempt to balance his praise for the possibilities of the web with mention of some of the downsides, I have an Orwellian queasy stomach about quality vs quantity issues he does not directly address.  He notes, for example that the Read/Write web has created millions of amateur editors, researchers, and reporters and is a “clearinghouse”  of  “published facts and photos.”  I agree that it is a clearinghouse, but it is also a giant store house with a lot of refuse to wade through to get to the treasure.  Just because there is a picture doesn’t create “FACT”.  The “amateur fact-checkers” he promotes all have biases.  The corrections can come from giant corporations, politicians, drunk college students and “crazy Aunt Martha’s”.  Students are particularly susceptible to thinking that the first “fact” they find is the best one and that anything printed or in picture form, must be true.  As someone who took a sharp left out of a potential journalism career, I am acutely aware of the talents required to produce the highest quality of tightly edited, professionally fact-checked news and commentary.  Even with all the vetting options Richardson suggests, it is asking a lot of undeveloped middle school minds to sort through the trash for the treasure.

The Social Learning – more social than learning?

The social learning opportunities Richardson notes are many.  I agree that some kids who don’t participate in class discussion might comment on a blog somewhat anonymously.  The one year I did blogging, however, I found the majority of participants were kids who spoke up in class anyway.  I also found that the one or two lines students entered tended to just parrot each other.  The very ease of comment and the short format encourages participation more than focused thinking or digging deeper into a topic.  Where there was deep thought, the entries prompted almost  jeering from other students.  The need not to appear to be an “egghead” outweighs most other considerations for my age students, whether it is on-line in out loud in class.  It may actually have been a little more pronounced on-line—since being “smart” is more accepted as the role some students are expected to play comfortably in class.  Kids seem to be fine letting “Sarah Smarty-Pants” carry the load in class discussion, but not in the more proletariat web world. The blogging encouraged participation and typing, but not necessarily focused, precise thinking and writing. 

Being Published Can Create Delusions of Competency

I believe that posting and sharing work makes the creative experience more authentic, but I also see a downside.  Kids (and many parents) often come to see the fact that something is self-published or  has “followers” means that it is good.  When I gave a student a low grade on a poetry project that required applying specific kinds of figurative language, a parent countered that the student was “published on the web" so I clearly do not know good poetry when I see it. 

The delusion that self-publishing equates with quality is pervasive and scary.  Students who publish their “novels” are certainly getting practice with words and ideas, but because there is no editing or vetting before publishing, many consider themselves accomplished writers with nothing left to learn   Kids do not need to prewrite or revise or be original or insightful, or remotely interesting to self-publish.  I have had a few of these kids and their parents suggest my teaching the trivial niceties of the craft of effective writing is superfluous for their prodigies.  After all, if I knew anything about writing, maybe I’d have published too!

But is the real value of the READ/Write Web more about the writer than the reader?

As I finish, I realize I have spent almost two hours on this single post---chopping out random musings, editing to focus more on the chapter, correcting word choice and syntax, and I STILL would never hand this rambling,-thinking- out- loud in as a formal paper.  Yet I am about to press publish.  Perhaps my issues with the web are the same reasons I do not try to write a novel—I know enough to know that very little of what is written is truly worth reading and sharing. 

The process of writing this has served ME, however. It has helped me understand and explore some of the concepts and realities we will embrace in this course. Maybe that is the value in WEB writing.  I fear and suspect that I have likely just repeated similar observations and insights of others.  I purposely did not read other postings on the chapter first so I could develop my own conclusions about the material first. Perhaps I will find some validation in the SHARED nature of similar conclusions.  Perhaps I will be disappointed that I really have nothing new to say that was worth anyone else’s precious time!