WoW article and the "disconnect"
Kelly Lovejoy
"Online fantasy worlds may seem too disconnected from real life to have educational value,... "
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
That's a quote from the article that Kelli and Jill were quoted in.
OK, so how does that "disconnection" differ from that of, say, Charlotte's Web, Little House on the Prairie, Sarah Plain and Tall, Lord of the Flies, King Lear, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Mary Queen of Scots, Tale of Two Cities, Tom Sawyer....I could go on and on.
How are *all* those books, which were required reading for me and/or Cameron, any more connected to our "real lives" to have any educational value?
I don't know that "educators" really understand how things *ARE* actually connected. How can they NOT see that online fantasy worlds are *just* as connected to "real life" as any of the reading they require of children?
~Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
That's a quote from the article that Kelli and Jill were quoted in.
OK, so how does that "disconnection" differ from that of, say, Charlotte's Web, Little House on the Prairie, Sarah Plain and Tall, Lord of the Flies, King Lear, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Mary Queen of Scots, Tale of Two Cities, Tom Sawyer....I could go on and on.
How are *all* those books, which were required reading for me and/or Cameron, any more connected to our "real lives" to have any educational value?
I don't know that "educators" really understand how things *ARE* actually connected. How can they NOT see that online fantasy worlds are *just* as connected to "real life" as any of the reading they require of children?
~Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-OK, so how does that "disconnection" differ from that of, say,
Charlotte's Web, Little House on the Prairie, Sarah Plain and Tall,
Lord of the Flies, King Lear, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Mary Queen of Scots,
Tale of Two Cities, Tom Sawyer....I could go on and on.-=-
Guessing...
Because you were respectfully reading the enshrined words of "real
authors," in a book made of paper, and bound with a nice cover. You
were doing it because adults told you to do it, and you were obedient.
Playing a video game isn't respecting someone else's literary
offering, it's not what they do in school, and it's not done at the
insistence of a parent or a teacher. It doesn't look like a book.
You can't write home to great grandma and said "Marty has read Uncle
Tom's Cabin" [SERIOUSLY!? Kelly, I do'nt think people in the real
world (outside of the SE U.S., I mean) read that book at all, unless
it's for background understanding of The King and I.]
There is doing what grandparents think is valuable (good)
and there is doing what grandparents don't understand (worthless)
and we poor parents are caught in the middle. Poor parents.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Charlotte's Web, Little House on the Prairie, Sarah Plain and Tall,
Lord of the Flies, King Lear, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Mary Queen of Scots,
Tale of Two Cities, Tom Sawyer....I could go on and on.-=-
Guessing...
Because you were respectfully reading the enshrined words of "real
authors," in a book made of paper, and bound with a nice cover. You
were doing it because adults told you to do it, and you were obedient.
Playing a video game isn't respecting someone else's literary
offering, it's not what they do in school, and it's not done at the
insistence of a parent or a teacher. It doesn't look like a book.
You can't write home to great grandma and said "Marty has read Uncle
Tom's Cabin" [SERIOUSLY!? Kelly, I do'nt think people in the real
world (outside of the SE U.S., I mean) read that book at all, unless
it's for background understanding of The King and I.]
There is doing what grandparents think is valuable (good)
and there is doing what grandparents don't understand (worthless)
and we poor parents are caught in the middle. Poor parents.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Michael Stonebraker
Unfortunately most people have a warped perception of reality and
connection. If it doesn't involve the correct amount of pain,
suffering, and disappointment it must not be real. If one isn't clear
about what rung of the social ladder they have climbed to, then it
must not be real. I could go on and on. For me to presume that the
only way for children to connect is the way that I "connected" as a
child would be dangerous. There is very little of Shelby's childhood
that resembles mine. For this I am grateful.
Clint Stonebraker
http://thefearlessandjoyfullife.com/
http://www.clintstonebraker.com/
(770)740-8696
connection. If it doesn't involve the correct amount of pain,
suffering, and disappointment it must not be real. If one isn't clear
about what rung of the social ladder they have climbed to, then it
must not be real. I could go on and on. For me to presume that the
only way for children to connect is the way that I "connected" as a
child would be dangerous. There is very little of Shelby's childhood
that resembles mine. For this I am grateful.
Clint Stonebraker
http://thefearlessandjoyfullife.com/
http://www.clintstonebraker.com/
(770)740-8696
On Oct 7, 2008, at 4:30 PM, Kelly Lovejoy wrote:
> "Online fantasy worlds may seem too disconnected from real life to
> have educational value,... "
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>
>
>
> That's a quote from the article that Kelli and Jill were quoted in.
>
>
>
>
> OK, so how does that "disconnection" differ from that of, say,
> Charlotte's Web, Little House on the Prairie, Sarah Plain and Tall,
> Lord of the Flies, King Lear, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Mary Queen of
> Scots, Tale of Two Cities, Tom Sawyer....I could go on and on.
>
>
>
>
> How are *all* those books, which were required reading for me and/or
> Cameron, any more connected to our "real lives" to have any
> educational value?
>
>
>
>
> I don't know that "educators" really understand how things *ARE*
> actually connected. How can they NOT see that online fantasy worlds
> are *just* as connected to "real life" as any of the reading they
> require of children?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~Kelly
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Sandra Dodd
-=-Unfortunately most people have a warped perception of reality and
connection. If it doesn't involve the correct amount of pain,
suffering, and disappointment it must not be real.-=-
I came across something cool about the history of reading the other day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Consider this passage on the Benedictine Rule, from Southern's Making
of the Middle Ages:
"The Rule laid down how the reading was to be done: the monk was to
read the whole book and read it straight through�there was to be no
'skipping', no laying ot it aside and taking up something else,
nothing light-hearted about it. It was part of a discipline, an
exercise in a penitential life. The part of the Rule which regulates
the monastic reading comes, significantly, in the chapter on manual
labour: the reading envisaged by the Rule was a painful business�it
was meant to be."
Southern is referring to Rule 48, 'Of Daily Work', which adds:
"Above all, let one or two of the seniors be appointed to go about
the monastery during the time that the brethren devote to reading and
take notice, lest perhaps a slothful brother be found who giveth
himself up to idleness or vain talk, and doth not attend to his
reading, and is unprofitable, not only to himself, but disturbeth
also others."
------------------------------------------------------------------
It was from a pompous blog, but those quotes were fascinating.
http://vunex.blogspot.com/2006/11/on-affliction-and-reading.html
It's not real reading unless it's painful and you're reading it
against your own wishes. <bwg>
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
connection. If it doesn't involve the correct amount of pain,
suffering, and disappointment it must not be real.-=-
I came across something cool about the history of reading the other day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Consider this passage on the Benedictine Rule, from Southern's Making
of the Middle Ages:
"The Rule laid down how the reading was to be done: the monk was to
read the whole book and read it straight through�there was to be no
'skipping', no laying ot it aside and taking up something else,
nothing light-hearted about it. It was part of a discipline, an
exercise in a penitential life. The part of the Rule which regulates
the monastic reading comes, significantly, in the chapter on manual
labour: the reading envisaged by the Rule was a painful business�it
was meant to be."
Southern is referring to Rule 48, 'Of Daily Work', which adds:
"Above all, let one or two of the seniors be appointed to go about
the monastery during the time that the brethren devote to reading and
take notice, lest perhaps a slothful brother be found who giveth
himself up to idleness or vain talk, and doth not attend to his
reading, and is unprofitable, not only to himself, but disturbeth
also others."
------------------------------------------------------------------
It was from a pompous blog, but those quotes were fascinating.
http://vunex.blogspot.com/2006/11/on-affliction-and-reading.html
It's not real reading unless it's painful and you're reading it
against your own wishes. <bwg>
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Robyn L. Coburn
Oh this immediately makes me think of "The Name of the Rose" - the missing
or maybe never real Aristotle's Comedy. The prohibitions against laughter. I
don't want to say any more and be a spoiler of the sleuthing story.
Robyn L. Coburn
www.Iggyjingles.etsy.com
www.iggyjingles.blogspot.com
<<<<Consider this passage on the Benedictine Rule, from Southern's Making
of the Middle Ages:
"The Rule laid down how the reading was to be done: the monk was to
read the whole book and read it straight through-there was to be no
'skipping', no laying ot it aside and taking up something else,
nothing light-hearted about it. It was part of a discipline, an
exercise in a penitential life. The part of the Rule which regulates
the monastic reading comes, significantly, in the chapter on manual
labour: the reading envisaged by the Rule was a painful business-it
was meant to be." >>>>
or maybe never real Aristotle's Comedy. The prohibitions against laughter. I
don't want to say any more and be a spoiler of the sleuthing story.
Robyn L. Coburn
www.Iggyjingles.etsy.com
www.iggyjingles.blogspot.com
<<<<Consider this passage on the Benedictine Rule, from Southern's Making
of the Middle Ages:
"The Rule laid down how the reading was to be done: the monk was to
read the whole book and read it straight through-there was to be no
'skipping', no laying ot it aside and taking up something else,
nothing light-hearted about it. It was part of a discipline, an
exercise in a penitential life. The part of the Rule which regulates
the monastic reading comes, significantly, in the chapter on manual
labour: the reading envisaged by the Rule was a painful business-it
was meant to be." >>>>
k
The disconnection that many people don't talk about has to do with much more
than education. Many parents want *more* control not less. Video games
don't provide that. In their thinking, video games come right between them
and their children.
Some might see video gaming as a cultural void, which many people don't see
as viably filled up if it's the young and inexperienced who are doing the
filling up of it. Well, it's make believe right? There have probably
always been people who worry about children being too imaginative or out in
space, with not enough focus on reality. They might also worry about kids
getting the idea that fantasy is real or that they have the ability to make
their crazy stories reality. Video games play into a lot of feelings like
that.
Out of their depth, parents might also feel they're rapidly losing ground.
For some, there's a fear that the basic structure of video games is
mind-altering in some insidious, subversive or evil way. Somebody in
computer programming unknown to the parents --who might not even be parents
themselves-- developed the game. The parents don't know who these people
are. This could be a valid fear when we consider that school is very
systematic and channels people a certain way.
My opinion is that the best protective measure (where we see a need for it)
is to enable children to move through and critically assess their world as
independently as possible at an early age. People (even children) who are
agents in decision-making are much more difficult to stupefy or program or
mess with. Some of the benefits: The sooner children realize that they
sometimes make fouled up decisions, the more realistically they are able to
learn from them. Also the younger a person is, the less damaging the
decisions in play are likely to be.
People who think they're breaking the rules to think unconventionally or
make their own decisions are easily pushed/rushed into letting others make
decisions for them. In most modern wars, the first people to protest, take
social action and/or go into exile were the free thinkers. They wouldn't go
along with the program. They objected and asked sticky questions. Many of
these people were independently educated.
First we want to be able to see our children primarily as people with the
capacity to make important decisions. (Not saying that children can make
all the important decisions or that they exist in some vacuum where the
parents offer no help.) That's simple. It's doable. Unschoolers are doing
that! Many people can't say that and it's scary for some of them to hear
about parents who *can* say it.
As a Christian, may I say one could, if so inclined, take the above and
multiply by an extra percentage of relevance, and see a much bigger
disconnection than secular people do in video games.
~Katherine
than education. Many parents want *more* control not less. Video games
don't provide that. In their thinking, video games come right between them
and their children.
Some might see video gaming as a cultural void, which many people don't see
as viably filled up if it's the young and inexperienced who are doing the
filling up of it. Well, it's make believe right? There have probably
always been people who worry about children being too imaginative or out in
space, with not enough focus on reality. They might also worry about kids
getting the idea that fantasy is real or that they have the ability to make
their crazy stories reality. Video games play into a lot of feelings like
that.
Out of their depth, parents might also feel they're rapidly losing ground.
For some, there's a fear that the basic structure of video games is
mind-altering in some insidious, subversive or evil way. Somebody in
computer programming unknown to the parents --who might not even be parents
themselves-- developed the game. The parents don't know who these people
are. This could be a valid fear when we consider that school is very
systematic and channels people a certain way.
My opinion is that the best protective measure (where we see a need for it)
is to enable children to move through and critically assess their world as
independently as possible at an early age. People (even children) who are
agents in decision-making are much more difficult to stupefy or program or
mess with. Some of the benefits: The sooner children realize that they
sometimes make fouled up decisions, the more realistically they are able to
learn from them. Also the younger a person is, the less damaging the
decisions in play are likely to be.
People who think they're breaking the rules to think unconventionally or
make their own decisions are easily pushed/rushed into letting others make
decisions for them. In most modern wars, the first people to protest, take
social action and/or go into exile were the free thinkers. They wouldn't go
along with the program. They objected and asked sticky questions. Many of
these people were independently educated.
First we want to be able to see our children primarily as people with the
capacity to make important decisions. (Not saying that children can make
all the important decisions or that they exist in some vacuum where the
parents offer no help.) That's simple. It's doable. Unschoolers are doing
that! Many people can't say that and it's scary for some of them to hear
about parents who *can* say it.
As a Christian, may I say one could, if so inclined, take the above and
multiply by an extra percentage of relevance, and see a much bigger
disconnection than secular people do in video games.
~Katherine
On 10/7/08, Kelly Lovejoy <kbcdlovejo@...> wrote:
"Online fantasy worlds may seem too disconnected from real life to have
educational value,... "
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
That's a quote from the article that Kelli and Jill were quoted in.
OK, so how does that "disconnection" differ from that of, say,
Charlotte's Web, Little House on the Prairie, Sarah Plain and Tall, Lord of
the Flies, King Lear, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Mary Queen of Scots, Tale of Two
Cities, Tom Sawyer....I could go on and on.
How are *all* those books, which were required reading for me and/or
Cameron, any more connected to our "real lives" to have any educational
value?
I don't know that "educators" really understand how things *ARE*
actually connected. How can they NOT see that online fantasy worlds are
*just* as connected to "real life" as any of the reading they require of
children?
~Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-My opinion is that the best protective measure (where we see a
need for it)
is to enable children to move through and critically assess their
world as
independently as possible at an early age. People (even children) who
are
agents in decision-making are much more difficult to stupefy or
program or
mess with. Some of the benefits: The sooner children realize that they
sometimes make fouled up decisions, the more realistically they are
able to
learn from them. Also the younger a person is, the less damaging the
decisions in play are likely to be.-=-
One thing I have seen people do is play games (or do other things)
simply because their parents don't like it. It's a passive-
aggressive act of foot-dragging or defiance (depending on the attitude).
With kids who have had choices all along, they won't play a game they
don't like, and they will have to reason to play a game to spite a
parent.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
need for it)
is to enable children to move through and critically assess their
world as
independently as possible at an early age. People (even children) who
are
agents in decision-making are much more difficult to stupefy or
program or
mess with. Some of the benefits: The sooner children realize that they
sometimes make fouled up decisions, the more realistically they are
able to
learn from them. Also the younger a person is, the less damaging the
decisions in play are likely to be.-=-
One thing I have seen people do is play games (or do other things)
simply because their parents don't like it. It's a passive-
aggressive act of foot-dragging or defiance (depending on the attitude).
With kids who have had choices all along, they won't play a game they
don't like, and they will have to reason to play a game to spite a
parent.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]