WMD’s” (Wireless Mobile Devices)

     At first glance, the chapter Rewired by Dr. Rosen made me cringe. I have always associated WMDs with nuclear inspectors, and military operations. Normally, this acronym over the course of my life has been associated with Weapons of Mass Destruction. If you were like many of my friends during the pre-Iraq war who sat around waiting for nuclear inspectors in Iraq to find WMDs, you might think the same. Since I am clear he is talking about Wireless Mobile Devices, I feel a better. I do not feel comfortable with this issue of cell phones in the classroom. In classes that I have taught, all cells must be turned off. This makes me a traditional Pragmatist right, well that is fine by me. I understand that our children are up to their ears in technology and it dominates every part of their lives, at least that statement is true for my two daughters. As educators, we must incorporate these new media applications and teaching approaches accordingly, but let us not become too enamored with the technology itself. Those media savvy students Dr. Rosen speaks of are smarter than we give them credit for, but this analogy of their creativity being marginalized does not pass my litmus test. Nothing beats a good old fashion book, not Nook in my opinion. Here the Kindle readers vs. Nook readers vs. iPad stockholders will cry foul. Being media savvy does not mean technical proficiency or competency. In some cases, this may equate to diminished problem solving and researching skills. If these prodigies are so smart, then they should not have a problem researching and creating data the old fashion way. In the real world leaders or managers, may not always have savvy technicians at their disposal during a decision-making processes, then what? This is what happens when orders cannot be placed over the telephone or Internet when the system is down. You know, those telephone calls were the clerk is no help to you, and tells you to call back when the computer is working.

     Are we teaching the necessary skills for our students to ask the most important questions, and that is the "why" of the critical thinking process? That is the WMD "Why Meanings Deferred" that is what I see as the real problem. Think of it this way. If all the information you need is at your fingertips, and is being provided by some cellular networking system, then instant answers and not research becomes more important. Here the biggest "WMD" of them all "the brain" is not being utilized to its fullest potential. Our children’s cognitive researching abilities are systematically being relinquished to computerized algorithms and leaving out the why in query all together. When people research for themselves they are developing thinking and reasoning skills, and are honing their ability to think and operate in an abstract and tactile environment. That bored under challenged Tween is more likely Goggling answers without understanding the how and why the query is even important. This is what troubles me concerning this proposed and sometimes implemented teaching methodology. Most of the classrooms I have visited in wealthier and poorer districts are already rewired to accommodate iPods, smartphone, smartboard technology, etc. Let us not relinquish the learning process over to cheap cold and non-intrapersonal technology.

     My philosophy is changing more along these lines, especially as I get older. Teaching students to become a good fisherman outweighs buying them expensive fishing poles with all the latest gadgetry available, and they do not know how to fish. I truly admire and appreciate this iGeneration’s unique perspectives in creativity, multimedia, and all of their multitasking abilities. I do subscribe to the tenets that many of these students are good content creators, but they do thrive on social interactions. Teachers should and are making strides to communicate better and connect the learning process in both the students real and screen lives. Although, giving a student a task and setting them free to complete it on their own and at their own pace is something Essex can't agree with. Another underlying fact about some of these educational anomalies is many students in rewired classrooms have more technical expertise than the instructors, which opens up a whole new can of worms for this discussion. I hope we are not becoming so dependent on technology in the classroom to advance a few that we relinquish good teaching methods that does not accommodate the many.

     Before I retired from the Army, I had to attend the Army’s Advance Course for senior leaders at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland, and the hardest test I ever took was the Sergeants Major Examination there at the academy. Anyone who has ever had the privilege of taking this test will remember it well because you only get 5 hours to complete it, and believe me, you need all 5 hours. I did not understand the true rigor behind this test until I was placed in leadership positions, and was forced to find answers for myself. The test forces you to research and find technical, medical, ethical, and logistical answer for your soldiers needs "on your own." I learned the hard way in this test that a good leader understands why, where, and how to get the right answers to difficult questions by using good researching techniques, and especially in moments of crisis. The only things you have at your disposal is a desk, your answer sheet, and approximately sixty or seventy different, medical, technical, logistical, and operational manuals. Of course, a clock constantly reminding you of how much time you do not have. The answer sheet at first looks simple because there were only fifty questions, but every question relied on at least two books, a regulation or combination of both for a correct answer. Never did one book have the only answer, and the clock went Tick-Tock. If you passed the test, you passed the course and your future in the Army and your next promotion to 1^st Sergeant or Sergeant Major was secure. If you failed the test, the last five months you spent training to get there was mute, your military opportunities, and for the better part your career was over. I passed the exam, went on to get married, had kids and retire some years later; but I never forgot the  real reason behind the Sergeants Majors Exam. That test taught me that especially in moments of crises, being technically savvy is not a good answer to real questions. Also being technical savvy does not equate to good leadership, it may look good with all of its bells and whistles, but being able to provide your people (students) with good and sound training or information is the real key. What got me through that test and the Advance Course itself were good and formidable research techniques? I am sure the Advance Course has adapted new technical gadgetry sense I was there at the "Proving Grounds." The modern Army must keep abreast with technology. Although, I’m willing to bet those seventy or so manuals is still on the table awaiting the next test taker, with no mobile devices or electronic aids to prove how smart you are.

References:

Rosen, L. (2010). Rewired: Understanding the net generation and how they learn. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Three Wishes, Oil, 2011

http://www.essexgarner.com/

Life (Watercolor) 2008

Do something constructive for Black History Month

Waiting for the World to Change (Watercolor) 2010

Words to paint by (Watercolor) 2009

If you really want to hear God laugh, tell him about all of your plans; He really does have a wonderful sense of humor. It is not where and how you start in life than counts, but how and where you finish. " Dreams; paint at the beginning of yours.

Sister Act (Watercolor) 2011