Is Google making our kids stupid- I don't think so!

Tommy Honey on Nine to Noon today was talking about two books and an article in the Atlantic monthly which each focuses on the negative side of the widespread use of the internet.
The article in the Atlantic Monthly by Nicholas Carr “Is google making us stupid?” compares the rise of information with the invention of writing or the printing press. The article focuses on changes to the way that adults access information- rapid skims. I am not sure that this is so different for children. They need to be taught to think about authenticity of information as they are not critical of the information that they read and stop looking as soon as they have found information. I would suggest that pre- internet children were less likely to look for the information, it took a lot more effort to go to a library or find another source of information (Mum/Dad!! Or Teacher!!) and then the source of information was rarely encouraged to be critiqued.

Mark Bauerlein (the dumbest generation)- notes that while the current generation has a lot of leisure time, money and technology, they are not engaging in deep learning through the internet.- again how does this really compare with previous generations as far as learning goes?

Maggie Jackson- distracted- the erosion of attention. This book looks at multitasking- always a subject of him vs her banter. Maggie points out that you can multitask with things that use different parts of the brain, otherwise it is not efficient (and can be dangerous) to multitask. Maybe it is more about filtering information and metacognitive processes- learners being aware of when they are trying to do multiple tasks which require the same part of the brain to operate (eg. Responding to a text message while answering a question in class).

Complexity and change.

In Seb Schmoller's blog "fortnightly mailing", is a post about a recent newspaper article that blames "teacher technophobes" for 80% of schools failing to make full use of the 1bill pounds spent on digital technologies in British schools in 2007. The 80% figure appears to come from BECTA though I haven't found how this was measured. I am interested in how 'full use' is measured.

Schooling and education is complex. Larry Cuban (2001) pointed out that pouring money into technologies in schools does not mean pedagogical change, change in education has always taken longer. Applying complexity theory to schools can help to explain what happens when digital technologies are introduced, an idea that was used by BECTA in their 2006 report.

There are many reasons why pedagogical practices don't change immediately when digital technologies are introduced (and thinking logically- why would anyone expect them to?). One that I have found interesting is the resistance to change by learners themselves who want to know the facts and information they need to learn for the exams or for a named tangible future life. The perception by students and the wider community of what is learning and what is the purpose of schooling is another aspect in the complex web of change in the digital era.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused : computers in the classroom. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Twining, P., Broadie, R., Cook, D., Ford, K., Morris, D., Twiner, A. and Underwood, J. (2006) Educational change and ICT: an exploration of Priorities 2 and 3 of the
DfES e-strategy in schools and colleges.The current landscape and implementation issues
Retrieved from http://partners.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/educational_change_and_ict.pdf

Photo: showing my photography skills of child jumping into water- missed again- but maybe illustrating the idea of complexity?

A view of students today

Mark Wesch from Kansas State University has posted another video that makes a good point about the reality for tertiary students. In this video he uses his students to make key points. It is worth watching- not a new message but put across clearly, and interesting to see the perspectives shown in the video- as some of the comments state, this doesn't reflect the reality for all students.


An alternative view- "a view of lecturers today".

Social inquiry- using Youtube to understand values.

One aspect of learning in social studies in New Zealand, is students carrying out inquiries that include looking at people's values. A relevant topic for this is boy racers- young men in cars who like to race and do burnouts in the cities on Friday and Saturday nights. In the past we have got students to ascertain the different values by reading newspaper articles. Today, the boy racers themselves are developing classroom resources through Youtube. Watching the attached video students should be able to clearly identify boyracer values from a boyracer source.
A bit of a dilemma may be that some of the students may become boyracers as a result of this!!!

Students co-constructing curriculum and contexts.

I believe it is important that students are involved in constructing the classroom curriculum that they are going to learn. In New Zealand, our national curriculum is flexible enough to allow students to have a big say in the contexts that will suit their learning needs and interests. It is not that difficult to do, and can be done with year 11-13 students where high stakes qualifications are included. Kath Murdoch and James Beane are two people who have inspired me in this area.

I was interested to read Marc Prensky's blog this week, advocating the inclusion of students at teacher education conferences. This is an idea worth further consideration.

I wonder how we could include a much stronger student voice in the process of the current tweak of our national curriculum.

Of course, this all assumes that we are ready to share or give up some of the power associated with being the teacher at the chalkface (or smartboard). Chris Sessums looks at the locus of control in his blog this week.