Just read this news item in the NY Times about a firm that offers online math courses to American school students.  A typical example of use of technology for objectivist teaching (refer chapter by Robyler).  Reading the article made me wonder why “drill and practice” style programs (like the one described) manage to get such good press.

Programs such as the one described in this article can easily be shown to get results (ie improved scores in traditional tests). Paul’s blog points out there haven’t been too many studies to prove the effectiveness of constructivist teaching approaches – I think the reason must lie partly in the fact that our assessment methods are still rooted in objectivist frameworks (at least in mathematics).

A conundrum that will no doubt face us as beginning teachers!

 References

Roblyer, M.(2006). Learning Theories as Bases for Integration. In M. Roblyer (Ed). Integrating educational technology into teaching.  4th Edtn. pp 36-52. Pearson/Merrill Prentice HallUpper Saddle River, N.J.

Just read Jamie McKenzie’s article “Stuffing technology into the curriculum” and agree wholeheartedly. The lessons he describes are typical of the ones I observed being used to teach students ICT. 

In one such lesson, students were required to enter a set of phrases into a search engine and record the number of websites returned into a table.  The lesson was aimed at teaching them how to use search engines and I am unclear how this outcome would be possible given the superficial nature of the task set.  To me this was a classic example of a lesson where students were supposedly learning to use technology but the learning if any was entirely incidental.  It was not authentic or intentional and in my books did not qualify as “meaningful learning”.

Jonassen’s paper advocates that technology use in the classroom should be as a tool to create meaningful learning.  He describes the characteristics of “meaningful learning” as being active, constructive, intentional, authentic and cooperative and looks at technology in its broader sense as the application of scientific knowledge. 

Given this framework, we can think of examples of such use of technology, for instance, use of simulation to teach projectile motion (authentic, active and constructive), blogs/display posters to document learning (cooperative, constructive), and group-work in hands-on problem solving (cooperative, active, goal directed).

Reference

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. 

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.