Romeo says in his paper

“…computers in education in Australia is and always has always been, more about teaching and learning, rather than technology.”

Absolutely how it needs to be.  We need to focus on what technology can do for us (and technology is more than just computers, surely) – how it can help us do better or do more easily what we already do- but also more importantly, how it can help create new types of learning experiences that were not possible earlier.

An example of the first is the use of electronic whiteboards in place of ordinary whiteboards or the use of computers to create a powerpoint presentation instead of a paper based report.  An example of the second category is where we make available computers for students to explore graph relationships so they can create their own understanding. Or activities where students use LOGO to construct something (a rabbit that not only looks like a rabbit but behaves like a rabbit – listen to Mitch Resnick’s podcast). Without the technology this activity may not have been accessible to school students. 

The important thing is that we focus on how the learning and/or teaching experience is enhanced. 

Reading Tracey’s blog (Widening the divide between rich and poor, 10 Aug) alerted me to another issue that we as educators need to be mindful of – the notion of the digital divide!  The divide is the gap in (or inequitable) access to technology but also in familiarity/fluency with the use of digital technologies. 

The government’s initiative to provide each student with a laptop may address the issue of inequitable access to hardware but in my view access to broadband & software will still be an issue.  Further, students will start at different levels of technological fluency – which in turn will impact the ways in which it is used.  Another factor here in Australia, is the divide between rural and urban areas, which is accentuated because cost to access the internet remains higher in rural/regional areas.

 Add that to your ever-increasing list of things to watch for as a classroom teacher :-/   

I was reading Tania’s blog (Don’t carbon date digital immigrants) and agree that being a digital native is not necessarily about age. 

But it is surely no surprise that someone who has grown up with the technology is more likely to be at ease using it without even thinking about it as being technology (“…if you ask Net Gen learners what technology they use, you will often get a blank stare. They don’t think in terms of technology; they think in terms of the activity technology enables.” in Oblinger and Oblinger).

My 5 year old son can turn on the computer, navigate to Youtube and type in some key phrases to bring up his favourite video and think nothing of it.  My 71 year old father needs someone else to get his online newspaper on the screen and can just about handle scrolling down the page to read it.  I am 40 and somewhere in between J

So, whilst age is not a determinant, surely it is a strong correlate?

I just read the article by Oblinger and Oblinger (Is it Age or IT) and one stray sentence stuck in my mind.

“The Net Gen may need to be encouraged to stop experiencing and spend time reflecting.”

The general picture that emerges from reading about the digital natives is that they’ve got too much going on in their lives … often at the same time.  They are bombarded by information from multiple sources and it is not clear where they have the mental or the physical space in their lives for reflection. 

Image: ‘the thinker (Self Portrait 3/26/07)‘

Made available under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Licence

Available at: www.flickr.com/photos/95257089@N00/436893659

In some ways then, keeping the classroom ”technology free” may not be such a bad thing?  

Is the average teenager really as writers such as Prensky and Rainie would have us believe? Are they really multi-tasking, super-fast, twitch-speed- responding, non-linear thinking, connected, achievement oriented, team working, social wunderkids being let down by this stodgy oh-so-yesterday teacher?  Well, I am not going to argue the facts of whether the teens of today are immersed in a digital culture. But I think I will reserve judgement on whether it is all for the better.

Let’s take the issue of multi-tasking, for instance.  Sure, we all multitask to some extent.  I listen to music as I drive; I keep watch on my two kids playing as I get dinner ready.  However, I find it hard to believe that a teenager listening to an ipod, and intermittently texting friends on his mobile and checking out the internet is also focusing effectively on a mathematics learning task (or lesson) … at the same time! After all, learning implies a level of focus and attention and all those other tasks in the background must use up some of our brain’s cognitive resources. A quick search revealed that there are at least a few other skeptics like me. 

Christine Rosen in a recent article talks about recent studies that highlight the dangers of multitasking.  Not only is multitasking likely to be detrimental to our long-term health (through release of stress hormones and adrenaline), it is not seen to be effective for learning (a different part of the brain was seen to be used when learning during multitasking, which is likely to make the new learning less easy to retrieve).  Finally, it is estimated that in the workplace, multitasking can reduce productivity at a huge cost to the economy (estimated at $650 billion annually in the US alone).

In Rainie’s article, Linda Stone tries to distinguish between multitasking and “continuous partial attention”.  As I see it, the difference between the two is arguable – the goals may be different but the underlying processes are still the same – with the same impact on learning. 

Tim Morgan: The Myth of Multitasking (or The Truth About Multitasking)

Made available under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic Licence

Available at http://www.flickr.com/photos/timothymorgan/62139938/

An earlier article in Time magazine notes that there’s substantial literature on how the brain handles multitasking. And, concludes that there is no such thing as multitasking – not really.   

“It may seem that a teenage girl is writing an instant message, burning a CD and telling her mother that she’s doing homework–all at the same time–but what’s really going on is a rapid toggling among tasks rather than simultaneous processing”.

Here is a teenager’s own description of multi-tasking from the Time article.

” … I pop a book open on my lap in my room, and while the computer is loading, I’ll do a problem or write a sentence. Then, while mail is loading, I do more. I get it done a little bit at a time.”

And, here is another gem …

“When I talk to my best friend Eloy,” says Piers, “he’ll have one earpiece [of his iPod] in and one out.” Says Bronte: “If a friend thinks she’s not getting my full attention, I just make it very clear that she is, even though I’m also listening to music.”

Oh, and, here is the great irony about multi-tasking – its overall goal, getting more done in less time, turns out to be a myth. In reality, multitasking slows our thinking

References

Rosen, C. (2008). The myth of multitasking.  The New Atlantis. Vol 20, pp 105-110, accessed electronically from http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-myth-of-multitasking on 04-08-08.

Wallis, C. (2006, 19 Mar). The multitasking generation. Time, accessed from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1174696,00.html on 4 August 2008.