The article concerning schools substituting field trips for “virtual video” trips brings up two tough questions, and each are addressed in the story. First, can a video trip supplant the real deal: crawling along the shore, touching a starfish, sand between the fingers and toes, and the moist cool ocean breeze on exposed skin? The second question seems to answer the first—should we do a virtual trip if we cannot afford to do otherwise? The answer seems to be “of course.” It’s sad that the kids can’t get to the ocean on a real fieldtrip, yet at least they’re making it by video. The “naysayers” may need to walk into the classroom and experience the video class firsthand to see if their objections are too hasty. For some of the kids’, surely this will be the closest they come to tidal pools.
However, I do believe the classes should visit places within budget and time constraints—the local park, gardens, or mountains to experience nature. Further, we're all aware that for a child, dirtying their hands and getting wet is truly a significant factor in the experience. In the end, I don’t know if watching a container of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream being eaten is fun, but I do know that taking a big honking bite of their “Crème Brulet” is awesome—and virtual can’t even compare. Yet if one can’t afford the savory stuff, virtual will have to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment