Young learners have been multi-tasking since they were toddlers. Whether listening to music while studying, instant messaging while in the classroom, downloading music and movies while surfing the web or speaking on the cell phone while writing a paper, digital natives are at their core parallel processors of information.
Digital learners have also grown up during a time when the concept of linear thinking is as dated as horse carts for transportation. New media has created a generation of learners who deviate from a single path approach. Hyperlinks, CD-Rom’s, DVD’s, DVR’s, iPods and the structure of the Internet in general gives today’s learner access to a breadth and width of resources that has never existed before. They can access the content in an intuitive non-linear fashion. Most kids today have never even seen an LP or a cassette tape. To them the notion of having to fast forward through all the content on a VHS tape in order to get to the final scene of a movie would seem archaic. To them the term, “be kind, rewind” has no meaning. After all, what in the world would you need to rewind.
Week 7 - Creativity, Learning and School
This week I was in a highly contrarian mood. My investigations led me to many videos and articles about creativity, learning systems and the day-to-day reality of the American, or world, educational systems.
Here are some of my findings and observations.
Last month, the United States Department of Education released a study showing no difference in academic achievement between students who used educational software programs for math and reading and those who did not.
In another large ongoing study the Texas Center for Educational Research, a nonprofit group, has so far found no overall difference on state test scores between 21 middle schools where students received laptops in 2004, and 21 schools where they did not. I did find some data however, that suggests that high-achieving students with laptops perform better in math than their less scholarly counterparts without them.
Mark Warschauer, an education professor at the University of California at Irvine and author of Laptops and Literacy: Learning in the Wireless Classroom found no evidence that laptops increased state test scores in a study of 10 schools in California and Maine from 2003 to 2005 and two of the schools have since eliminated their laptop programs.
Is this a case of teachers not knowing how to integrate the new gadgets into their curriculums?
It does take time to train teachers (Digital Immigrants) on how best to use the new technologies and integrate them into their classes. Are these schools giving up on the technology too early? Or are these just cases of flummoxed Digital Immigrants rebelling against a scary new world order? Can new learning paradigms like those espoused by Ken Robinson and James Paul Gee truly unlock the potential of the new digital tools. Or is the promise of Web 2.0 just a big shell game? No more than a quick fix embraced by philanthropists and theorists with agendas to satisfy who have no real clue as to what works in the front-line classrooms of America and the world.
Laptops and the Internet seem to me to be of great value when you talk about things like innovation and creativity. But what is really the goal of a general public education? Is it to get kids up to a basic level of standardized functioning that can be easily assessed and quantified? That seemed to be my dominant experience in public school unfortunately. If that IS the goal, then maybe laptops and digital tools aren't all that useful, but instead are a waste of time and money. If the goal is to create future George Lucas' and Steve Jobs' then laptops are probably incredibly useful. Or essential. But how many of us can be a Gearge Lucas or Steve Jobs?
I remain sympathetic to and enthusiastic about the promise of digital tools being an important part of an evolving learning system and learning paradigm. These tools and the systems they are yet to produce are still in their infancy. There has been and will continue to be growing pains associated with the implementation of new media technologies in America's classrooms. But with each passing year more and more digital natives will become teachers, and the technologies will mature. And honestly, what other choice do we have?
One of the ideas that reverberates throughout much of Gee's writings (at least the ones that I have read) is that he believes that game technology has the potential to bring major changes to lots of academic areas, to schools and workplaces, and to society at large. But he thinks it cannot happen, yet, because there is a major generational divide at play. Digital Immigrants control academic areas and other institutions, but are not embedded in the experiences and technologies that younger people today are, especially the Digital Natives (kids starting college on down to babies). Popular culture today -- stuff like Pokemon for little children -- is much more complex than the stuff that made up the popular culture of my youth or any previous generation. Video games are often long, challenging, and demanding, and yet they are probably the dominant part of popular culture for Digital Natives. The video game industry makes far more money than Hollywood each year. So is it even possible for the Digital Immigrants to understand the need for and effective ways of using the things that make up the majority of the Digital Natives world? It seems we are in some sort of chasm between the past world (analog/organic) and the future world (digital) and the citizens of each have a hard time communicating across the divide.
But has this generational divide always been so? And is it the role of the previous generation to impart their lessons to the new generation using the tools that they feel most comfortable with? How can it possibly be that a teachers effectiveness somehow is compromised because they are over 40? That seems nuts. But i am closer to 40 than 20.
Week 8 - Is this the Dumbest Generation?
I think that this weeks videos pretty much speak for themselves. There is much that I disagree with in the Mark Bauelein video. But he brings up some pertinent ideas.
Mrs. Shim's story is just sad and that kid is probably very depressed, but his case highlights a growing problem linked to digital technology and its highly addictive nature. This story is a harbinger of things to come I am afraid.
I did find a hopeful outlet this week and spent a lot of time watching videos and reading this guys thoughts on teaching at the blog of a newish teacher named Dan Meyer. His teaching blog dy/dan is brilliant and the students who have him as a teacher are very lucky indeed.
Week 9 - In the End
Over the course of this semester, I investigated a variety of topics related to designing Instructional products for so-called Digital Natives.
The three questions I endeavored to answer were:
1. Do you believe that we have to design, develop and deliver instruction differently for the so-called Digital Natives?
2. Are there differences in learning expectations and styles or can we just design good instruction and know that it meets all generational needs?
3. What are some of the current best practices for engaging and instructing Digital Natives?
Here are my answers.
1. I concur with John Paul Gee that we MUST design, develop and deliver instruction differently for Digital Natives. This is obvious and imperative.
2. There ARE major differences in learning expectations and styles between Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants. It is past time to implement new teaching models and the digital revolution is making this possible. But we must be careful not to allow the use of new technologies and the ease that Digital Natives have with them to overwhelm and replace the core foundations of a rich education. We should strive as much as possible to not allow the medium to become the message.
3. As for the best practices for engaging and instructing Digital Natives?
I've come up with a few things that we should keep in mind when designing Instructional products for anyone, but especially Digital Natives.
1. Use of media should be purposeful and provide meaning to the course—Digital Natives are not going to be impressed that instructors can simply embed a video lecture into a blog for class.
2. Information should be provided not only in a variety of multimedia formats (video, audio, images, text, games) but also through various genres (narrative, fiction, nonfiction) and mashups and cross-genre learning should be encouraged.
3. Products should allow for group learning whenever possible enabling collaboration, multiple means of expression and other engaging learner led activities.
4. The learning should never just be about right answers. It should involve explanation and justification.
5. Inquiry and problem-based learning should be encouraged whenever possible.
6. Instructional products should involve methods, purposes, and forms of one of more disciplines, situated in a social context whenever possible.
Here is the project that my inquiries have led to.
I am happy with the product and feel that the project-based nature of this class was a great success, especially for me. I learned a great deal, and in a much deeper way than I would have by just reading the material and taking tests on it. Honestly, I would have had a hard time even finishing a class on this material presented in that way. But the methods employed in this class kept me interested and working incredibly hard to match my creative project with the theory-based subject matter of the class. I wish that I had been able to enjoy more classes taught in this manner throughout my school history. Despite the fact that I am pretty good with digital technologies, I know that I am not a Digital Native. I can easily remember a time before the personal computer conquered the world. Though I enjoy the ease of creativity that the digital tools provide, sometimes I get a little nostalgic for a time before screens. This investigation has heightened my awareness about the changing nature of learners and learning as well as brought into focus the need for unplugged quiet time in which to interact with others the way that human beings have since the dawn of time.
.
.
Bibliography:
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall.
Gee, James Paul. (2007). What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy (2nd edition) Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.
Prensky, M. (2001a, September/October). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf
Prensky, M. (2001b, November/December). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
