The Future and Grammar

People write millions of wordsTechnology is changing the way we view the classroom. And social media is changing the way we communicate with regards to grammar. For some reason, some people just do not take writing very seriously, and for the life of me I cannot understand why this is. People write millions of words over the course of their lifetimes – is it not valuable to ensure that those millions of words are as high-quality and coherent as possible? Spelling, grammar, tense usage – there are a number of recurring errors and writing mistakes that I find to be particularly frustrating, but those recurring writing errors are the ones that really take the cake. You know the ones I mean – I’m talking about “then vs. than”, “you’re vs. your”, “they’re vs. there” – those grammatical errors that demonstrate a less than elementary working knowledge of the English language and are more prominent than ever now given the advent and popularization of social media. The ease and accessibility of social and digital media and messaging has been a serious blow to English writing as well – these days, people are more concerned with delivering their intent as quickly as possible, even if it means disregarding proper English in the process.

I find this to be utterly disheartening. Frankly, implementing and utilizing a sophisticated language is something that represented an advancement for the human race towards greater evolution and maturation. Disregarding our languages and rules of writing represents regression on the part of Western civilization and the world at large – we are losing part of what had made our species different than the others on the earth. Sadly, as technology advances further and further, it seems increasingly likely that this trend will be disrupted.

No Grammar, No SMS!

I would advocate for standard messaging services to be obligated to implement grammatical blocks that prevented users from sending messages that are grammatically incorrect. I know that this might seem somewhat extreme, but in the interests of the greater good, it would be a tremendous thing for human life. More so, my program would have a finite amount of life in it – as folks learn more about the grammatical mistakes that they’re making through programs like WhiteSmoke or Grammarly, the less they would be reliant on said programs, as they would be LEARNING. If you are unaware of what these programs are has reviews on all of them that explain what they are and do.Learning the proper rules of grammar

Learning the proper rules of grammar negates the need for someone to have grammar and writing correcting software forced onto them. The sooner people begin to see the mistakes that they’re making be corrected, and the sooner it is explained to them and they understand why in fact their mistakes are mistakes, the sooner that person will be to not making any grammatical mistakes that could be corrected in the first place.

Writing is not going anywhere any time soon. The digital age has led to an increase in poor writing, but an increase in writing nonetheless. It’s important that we make sure our children and adults alike are educated in terms of grammar for the sake of the future of our planet. Once our societal shortcomings are corrected, proper habits will be ingrained and people will have less to work on, moving forward with their lives.

Should Learning Be Only Done In The Classroom?

what do we need teachers forPart of owning and operating a gun is proper education. Today  education is evolving with technology. Is there any kind of practical benefit to live teachers teaching in the classroom with live students? An increasing percentage of the education community does not seem to think so. The older the generation or age of the person, the less likely they are to agree with the sentiment behind moving towards computerized education, which makes sense. People don’t like what is unfamiliar to them, particularly if they feel that this new development could marginalize them. In other words, teachers don’t want to concede that computerized education is the way of the future because they think that computerized education is threatening to their livelihood. If a computer can teach a class – what do we need teachers for?

I’m here to tell you that this line of thinking that has been adopted by educators and administrators alike is not a logical one. The growth of computerized education should not squeeze out teachers from the education in any way – rather it can, should, and does serve to help them by making their lives easier and enhancing the information that they have to convey to their students. In a vacuum, society is not asking teachers to retire so that it can enlist computers to help teach students. Rather, society would like to see the fat and inefficiencies that plague education trimmed, so as to enhance the lives and learning of students and teachers alike.

Computers Don’t Threaten Jobs

computerized learningBasically, computerized learning doesn’t mean that a computer teaches students certain specific information, replacing the life of the teacher. It means cutting out the need for physical classroom by creating accessible class content on the computer – saving the teachers and students thousands of hours over the course of an academic lifetime by eliminating the need for a commute to school, and saving a school board and administration thousands in costs by eliminating the need to accommodate students and teachers in person. Teachers create content to be reviewed by the students on the computer, grade assignments and papers, and answer questions all over the computer as opposed to in person – proving that the unique lessons and perspectives offered by educated, trained teachers is very much valuable.

To clarify, in no way should this system apply to anyone but the college level and above. There is something inherently valuable in terms of development in children and teens attending to school so as to learn how to best benefit and integrate into society. The thought of children staying home and being robbed of valuable interaction with peers and teachers alike is a tragic one, and that’s why this (computerized learning) will never become a reality for any kind of young person.

The bottom line is, there is too much to be gained by optimizing learning via computers for this to never become a widespread, universally adopted practice. Students are proven to learn no less over the computer than their contemporaries who are taught the same thing in the same class – there’s really nothing left to say to defend the idea that learning should only be done in classrooms.