von Fei Gao Vor 15 Jahren
180
CEP806 Group 1 (Oct 12)
The discussion revolves around the concept of "nature deficit disorder," a term coined by Richard Louv to describe the increasing disconnection between children and the natural world.
von Fei Gao Vor 15 Jahren
180
Mehr dazu
After reading the article and looking at the general question, I thought that maybe this could be a decent setup to keep the discussion matter compartmentalized. I assume there will be a lot of relationship lines, but I guess we'll just have to see what you three think. Now I realize that compartmentalization is a male trait ,and the other three group members are females, so if this isn't logical, like last time, change it up to make it more user friendly:)
Works for me! I had been trying to think about the best way to do this. This suits the question pretty well.
Looks great! Makes sense!
Nature deficit disorder?
The focus of this module is on simulations and science learning. In this week's discussion, you'll be carefully considering what Richard Louv has to say about this issue. He's coming at the issue from a slightly different angle than you might expect. Instead of taking a side on whether simulations are realistic or not, Louv is concerned about whether our children have enough opportunity to interact with the natural world. Specificially, he thinks today's children and their parents may suffer from "nature deficit disorder." What is this disorder? What are the causes? And, how does Louv's position inform your thoughts about the use of Internet simulations to learn science?
so what makes humans and kids and adults so vulnerable to the draw of virtual reality?
is our imagination and need for entertainmnet the reason?
You ask an interesting quetion, Libby. It seems as though "Change" is a hard thing for anyone to do, yet the "Change" we've seen in the last decade makes it hard to deny that people are doing it. I think convenience is a big part life today. Everything is needed, "Here and now" and that's what technology provides. And, back to your origninal comment, I think the virtual world gives us a richer sensory experience in some instances than the natural world (or at least certain people think so), so of course it is going to be more intriguing.
Absolutly. We live in a world of instant gratification. I am absolutely amazed at the items my studetns have in their rooms. One of my third graders 3 years ago had a flat screen tv, xbox, cellphone, and a laptop. And he was only 8 years old. He loved it when he was sent to his room because he wasn't required to interact with anything non-electronic.
Libby k
i can see how that student's world is possibly more imaginative and not as threatening. does this mean we are raising kids who will fail to engage others on a more personal level or be good at interpersonal skills? may be they will not deal well with more complex situations?
Perhaps it is a fundemental rewiring of our brains which Louv is afraid of in his nature deficit disorder. Not only that nature becomes less important but that we miss out on a richer sensory experience and training in observation and analysis. Without the various sounds and sensations we miss out on developing more intersting thoughts and understanding of our world. That a free exploration of a natural space is part of our cognition.
As I interpreted "Nature Deficit Disorder", it is the. "Whole attitude that nature isn't important anymore."
What I took out of it is that since the advent of technology, including the media, what was natural perhaps ten to fifty years ago is a forgotten art. The art of going outside and entertaining yourself is beyond the expectations of the parents and of their children. Just my take...what was everyone else's interpretation?
Great definition! But I also think tha
Another thought on the authors' comments regarding what kids need in their lives'; while I agree that nature should be an important part of it, I believe there needs to be adaptation to the world around us. Technology is allowing us to do amazing things in the cyberworld, and I think we totally need to take advantage of them, however, there needs to be a point where we can find a balance. All systems in the world that function properly always have a balance...humans included. To be totally wired would be tragedy in that we would never experience the true beauty of "real life", no matter how amazing any simulation might be.
The parallel I see to this and our use, as teachers, of simulations is that there needs to be a balance. Like evolution, and the article on "representation and misrepresentation" states, evolution kinda snuffs out what is undesireable, and keeps the most desired traits. We as science teachers need to make a balance of real and simulated, understand technologies limitations, and use what we know will be best for the students....Ugh, kind of a rant. Let me know your thoughts!
i agree balance is best. there are situations where either for safety or accessability simulations are useful. there is no substitute for the real deal, though. consider it a primary source. There is a lot to be gained from a primary source. I think origionality and personal expression are the two main reasons for using primary sources. You make your own decisions/thoughts when viewing a primary souce. I would consider simulations a secondary source.
Jeff Vogt- Balance
Libby, I agree that our generation considers nature a primary source, but I wonder about our students? We ask them a question and they immediate response (generalization) is that, "Well on the internet I saw..." Plus, with Facebook and other pages, simulation HAS become personal expression. You can be anybody, say just about anything, and do just about anything. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, it just "is".
An a somewhat related note, did anybody read the "Given and the Made" article? It talked a little bit about this idea of appearance versus reality in simulation. Pretty much, the article made me feel kind of stupid, but bits and pieces made sense and it was overall a well written article with some extremely interesting points.
libby k
jeff, i had not thought about the online identity aspect. certainly this is a huge issue for may of our students - such a change and yet another challenge for their identity development.
the article " the made and the given" raises very interesting ideas about just this very thing. although this article has more scope than just science simulation - as you say - facebook and my space - take up more of a student's life than a science simulation- this is one arguement against simulations... that they do not give the "truth" and that humans still need that truth for understanding the world around them
Although I do favor a balance, I would say most kids lean more toward technology-based experiences, and less toward real life nature-based experiences. This is a generalization and I believe exceptions do exist, but I think the majority of kids spend more time in front of technology (T.V., computer, video gaming system, etc.) and less time exploring outside.
Each generation becomes more and more "wired". I think it is important to encourage kids to find the balance spoke about in this post. I remember as a kid being sent outside to play. This often fueled very creative and imaginative experiences. I'm not sure that this happens as often anymore.
Jeff Vogt- Tendencies
If only some kids knew what "playing" was all about. Take away their cell phone, iPod, and other tools and they are suddenly unimaginably lost. I think that would in fact bring back a desire to be outside, followed hopefully, for a love to be outside. Give them no reason to be inside and see what happens...
You read my mind on this. To say either we should always use simulations or never use them are both extreme points of view.
Sometimes simulations create situations that wouldn't be possible to view otherwise. Students would miss out on the opportunity to experience something if a simulation wasn't present. Some reasons for not being able to actually experience a concept outdoors could be due to location, accessibility, or timing.
However, I also agree that it can be pretty powerful to see the way world works up close and in real life. I think that is why science programs continue to use experiments and real-life observations, in addition to technological teaching pieces.
I think that Louv has a valid point in many respects. Yes, I believe the media can create panic, but I also believe that you have to be intelligent enough to see through the hyperbole. Yes, criminals exist, but sheltering children from nature as a result robs them of the beauty of the world around them...Parents just need to use common sense in that respect.
Perhaps then a great way for kids to experience nature would be with parents. Not only would they have the opportunity to see the outdoors, but would also have shared common memories with their parents. I realize this can't always be possible, but it seems like it could be pretty special for many kids.
One way to do this is to share an outdoor activity such as hiking, fishing, bike riding etc. or by starting some sort of collection together, such as leaves or flowers.
Jeff Vogt- Parents
Jennifer, what you stated is essentially what Louv was preaching, teaching them to appreciate nature. I think the benefit of actual parenting is two fold beneficial. One, you are mentoring your child (which may or may not help to defend against the moral "meltdown" that America is convinced is occurring with our youth. Two, teaching them to love and appreciate nature will help to teach children about the responsibility they have on Earth as its inhabitants. Plus, people that are in tune with, or at least appreciate nature, in my opinion, seem to be nice, happy people.( I wonder if there is any academic research to this correlation?) I don't think many people would throw a fit over a nicer and happier human population. So when someone tells you to, "Take a Hike"...don't take it personally, take it literally:)
Would be an interesting research question. I think people for the most part who spend time outdoors do have a different take on life as well. More happy go lucky in a sense and they don't tend to let the little things get them as much.
libby k -parents
watching friends and family as parents has been interesting especially on this issue. one set actually has louv's book - which they love. they have really set an agenda to introduce their kids to hikes and all other outdoor activities. others show their appreciation by not squishing the spider but letting the spider free outside.
however, there is a collective " you must not love your child if you don't worry 24/7" culture in america. sometimes i see this as a very invasive tone that is done to many parents. mostly, as we say, stemming from the media. the result i think is this called over-parenting?
All in all i think Louv is a nice voice of balance for parents. A rebalance of worry versus raising individuals and another advocate for using media wisely.
i'm not sure which person started this idea but i think they even mention this in high school chemistry texbooks: because we can now measure the smallest amount of toxins in our enviroment, the tendency is to worry too much about too little. not only has information about crime become more and more present in our society but also more and more information (both good and bad) about the levels of pollutants are released without a good understanding of what it all means. here then is yet another reason and cause of NDD.
I agree with you on this too. It seems like each year parents as a whole get more and more frightened about what germs or diseases might be lurking outside.
Not only the toxins but also the allergies that kids have. It is shocking how students at my school in MI have allergies - yet my school in Northern California had zero. Wonder if there is any correleation?
Agreed, and happy to see you on Mindomo, Libby!
I think our living accomodations and communities also contribute to Nature Deficit Disorder. I grew up on 3 acres and could explore all over the place. We wandered down to the river, made tree houses, etc. My studetns though are growing up in a very different environment. Most live in townhomes and apartments - where there is no place for them to go and explore. Or if they do live in a house often the landscaping has to be perfectly manicured and there is no room for kids to get dirty and explore.
Many communites have parks - but how many of those have an area were kids can just be kids?
While farms and large plots of land exist, urban sprawl is quickly taking over this nature we speak of in many areas. But, is sprawl necessarily bad?
Melanie Gray
I don't know if it is neccessarily bad. But I think that we (parents/kids) need to make conscious efforts no matter what type of community we live in to get out in nature. Whether it be heading to a local park or hiking in the mountains we need to head outdoors.
I had never thought about this! I grew up playing outside, but we did live in town until I was 12. After that we moved to the country, where we also had three acres of land and a pond. When we lived in town it was still an older community, meaning there were lots of mature trees, bushes and other outdoor landscaping features that made great forts or other imaginary play areas!
A lot of the new subdivisions do not have tall, mature trees yet. Many often have very few trees at all, which takes away from the play areas some and the imagination possibilities.
Another reason I think Nature Deficit Disorder exists is because the way we live now is very different than daily life twenty or thirty years ago. We now have acess to more "gadgets" and ways to be entertained indoors than before. Before these things came along, being outside was much more exciting than being inside for the most part. Outdoors is where the adventure used to lie.
I definitely agree with this shift in the adventure. With the advent of technology that allows users to experience some pretty sick simulations and interface with multiple users of great distance away, the adventure is certainly "in". But I have to say in its defense, has anybody every played Guitar Hero? Yeah, I totally understand why kids don't always get to their homework. Is it right, well, that goes back to the "balance" which is necessary.
Jennifer Newman-Game Vs. Reality
I'm amused that you bring up Guitar Hero. My husband is a band director and he is often amazed and how long people will spend trying to master a game that involves using just a few buttons to play a guitar, but give up so quickly on an actual instrument In a sense, don't both require the same amount of determination to master? Is it just that it is a longer process with a real instrument than with the video game? Or is it more about the technological world than the skills involved? Also, are we then looking for more immediate gratification?
Libby k game vs. reality
whatever happended to the saying -you can't cheat mother nature?
interesting point made about the effort level your husband sees on guitar hero vs. guitar. a sad comment but true comment on some of the choices we make in our lives. although this may be a way to encourage new beginners to music. i can not see guitar hers being the same or better than playing an actual instument. the differnece is like going to a concert versus listening to it on a recording.
as the articles we read for last week bring out.... in virtual games... others are incontrol of what and how and how much we can get from these games.
Jeff Vogt- Agrees with Jennifer
Students, and instant gratification, definitely a factor. Results (Guitar Hero) are right there in front of you.
One of the biggest causes as stated by Louv is the up play of violent crimes by the mass media. An amber alert comes on and everyone panics, like it happens all the time. This idea of media creating panic and fear is partially resonsible for parents' action of keeping kids inside and closing off playgrounds and parks for safety reasons.
