Videomania II

Posted on June 25, 2013 by knlistman

Photographer aVideos are often promoted as the best way to educate a population marked by decreasing literacy. I often hear “teenagers watch tons of videos on YouTube,” as a reason to depend on videos in the classroom. A more sophisticated explanation might be that videos increase learning through multi-sensory instruction  – The synergy of sensory input of from sound and visuals can teach more than the spoken word alone.

Of course technology does not always improve the appeal of multi-sensory instruction. Think about it – which would be more interesting, watching a full-sized live performance or a recorded version on a five-inch screen? Of course, technology makes it more convenient (much easier to share a video on an iPhone than to transport a band). So now there are massive numbers of videos that we can beckon with the touch of our fingertips.

Simply video-taping myself teaching will make me less interesting to students (even if it will make me available at any time). So why are students constantly watching videos of each other on YouTube? Content – People in embarrassing situations, humorous spoofs and acts that defy reality are entertaining, but entertaining doesn’t always equate to educating.  Everyone likes to see movies starring themselves. I suppose if I could arrange for students to enact a lesson on triangle theorems and proofs, they would watch it raptly, absorbing every detail. However, no one else would pay attention to it.

Actually, we cheat students out of something that they need if we rarely require them to read content. They do not have the option of recording or videotaping their homework; they must write it. Normally tests are written – not videos. As e-learning becomes popular, videos are increasingly used to break the monotony of participating in isolation. However, as it becomes a prevalent medium of communication it loses its appeal due to overuse. I recently saw e-learning video on psychology, on which a viewer had posted the comment – “Why does everything have to be a video. I can read, why don’t you let me read?”

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Posted in Education trends, Technology in education | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Videomania

Posted on June 23, 2013 by knlistman

aside

It was almost lunch time and the majority of the students had finished their worksheet. The classroom teacher had decided it would be no imposition for him to leave early, so I was left in charge. A few girls in the back were chatting about a YouTube featuring a teenage girl consuming a disgusting item, trying to figure out how it was faked. I was politely prodding  a boy who had spent much of class simply staring at the textbook. Swiveling his head, he attempted to flag their attention, eager to get the YouTube link.

So I asked “Why did you need to know it?”

“I need to see the video.”

“But it’s is faked.”

“Well, it’s just the thought of it.” he grinned evidently pleased at the sickening image he imagined.

“What is the use of watching something that really isn’t  happening?”

“Who cares as long as it is interesting. It’s more interesting than chemistry,” he shot back.

There are a few ways I could respond:

1) Explain how there would be no such thing as videos on YouTube without the contribution of chemistry savvy individuals in the fields of photography, film, and integrated circuits. However, due to these innovative people (plus software experts) video encoding can be done by the average second grader. With advance knowledge in science no longer necessary to do so many tasks due to electronic devices, this student may see no motivation to learn them.

2) Try to point out that real information is bound to be more useful that than a obvious fabrication. Although this seems obvious, it is extremely hard to combat the human attraction for the sensational story.  As journalist Robert Bianco noted concerning movies, “The preference for fiction over fact is hardly a new phenomenon.”[1] This student was searching for something interesting little concern about the truthfulness or applicability of what he learned.

3) Find a video with adequately realistic disgustingly gross scenes to teach the procedures that this student found boring. Despite the myriad entertaining videos on the Internet, those with adequate instruction in stoichiometry are mostly words on a screen or writing on a board. If attention grabbing sequences are added to this kind of instruction, students pay attention to these scenes and not the instructions for solving the problems.

4) Inform the student that learning applications in chemistry will lead to higher thinking skills. Although this may be true there is no evidence that higher thinking skills can be transferred from chemistry to designing software or interpreting a novel. If his career goals are not going to require any further knowledge of chemistry, he might as well be studying complex problem solving in some other domain.

5) I asked the student what he felt he needed to learn in order to do what he wanted to do. He said he was planning joining in the army and become a gunner in a helicopter. I responded from my experience as creating lessons for a newly armed version of an army observation helicopter (OH58-D) during the time of the Gulf War.

“You need to know basic chemistry and physics both if you are going to be dealing with ordnances.” I said.

“I’m not going to do that, I’m going to be a gunner,” he declared, repeating the thrilling description that an army veteran had given him.

I hope most high school students will not have as rude an awakening as he will, if he ever reaches his dream job.

[1] Bianco, Robert. On Video, Wilmington Morning Star, Friday  June 26, 1998

 

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Posted in Education trends, Technology in education | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Generation A

Posted on June 21, 2013 by knlistman

Picture 070 (72) copyRecently I was sitting in the dentist’s office waiting. Across from me was a father and his son that couldn’t have been more than three. The child intently maneuvered a tiny race car across the screen of an iPhone. He gave a little scream of delight with each success.

I was amazed at his ability, but evidently he had been practicing for awhile. The man kept warning “my battery will be dead soon.” The screams of delight just got louder. Eventually reaching an ear-splitting pitch as the child continued to play while dodging his father who was trying to retrieve his phone. This was not the first preschooler that I had seen addicted to gaming – just the most obnoxious.

Digital natives, generation net or generation Z are nicknames given to those who have never known any society but that in which media provided by the internet was wherever they went. However, I think some are morphing into a new group, Generation A. But the A doesn’t stand for addicted – addiction has been with us through many generations. Many times recently I have read that instruction should be delivered in short, attention grabbing  interactive segments because that is what the upcoming generation expects. The gamification of education has been encouraged. If we achieve it, what do we lose?

Psychiatrist Daniel Amen has interviewed parents whose children play video games so much that their schoolwork and other activities are ignored. They show withdrawal symptoms, even going into screaming tantrums of fear when forced to stop playing. The children suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).[1] Increased symptoms of that disorder may be one of the defining marks of the upcoming Generation A.

Evidently there is a correlation between ADD/ADHD (the hyperactive variety) and the non-stop availability of electronic media. Research conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health reached the following conclusion: “Extensive exposure to television and video games may promote development of brain systems that scan and shift attention at the expense of those that focus attention.”[2]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recorded a rise in ADHD for over a decade; diagnosed cases increase at the rate of about 3% a year since 1996. Younger children are increasingly exposed to the brilliant and rapid scene changes in media. According to Dr. Dimitri Christakis this may condition their brains to expect excessive stimulation. The normal world becomes “underwhelming.” Studies of students  show that the distractions offered by technology interfere with their attention when they are working. They can multi-task, but everything takes longer to complete. Finishing a task on a computer in an efficient and timely manner becomes increasingly difficult as updates clamor for attention.[3]

Often, I feel the pressure to deliver instruction in short concise chunks with intense audio and video to banish boredom in education. This is supposedly necessary for a generation who are used to having their attention grabbed by addictive bursts of stimuli. However, are we doing them a disservice? Are we making the next generation one increasingly inflicted with ADHD?

[1] Amen D (2001) Healing ADD: The Breakthrough Program That Allows You to See and Heal the 6 Types of ADD, New York, NY: G.P. Putnam— s Sons
[2] Jensen PS, Mrazek D, Knapp PK, Steinberg L, Pfeffer C, Schowalter J, Shapiro T (1997) — Evolution and Revolution in Child Psychiatry: ADHD as a Disorder of Adaptation— Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 36:1672-1679.
[3] Rosen, L.D. (2012) iDisorder: Understanding Our Obsession with Technology and Overcoming Its Hold on Us: Macmillan  

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Posted in The information age | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Price of Information

Posted on June 20, 2013 by knlistman

Paris 2012 062 La Tour EiffelHumankind’s love affair with technology is not a new development. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the  advances in industrial technology were touted as the solutions to problems of crime, poverty, ignorance and the boredom of ordinary daily life. The level of education was rising. La Tour Eiffel, nicknamed “the Lady of iron,” was a symbol of the new power of industry.

However, as the world celebrated the advancements of technology in art, and architecture, the reputation of technology received a blow. The Eiffel Tower watched over two world wars. The first war reached an intensity unknown before that time due to new industrial technology in weapons. The second war resulted from the resource grab to build up industry and overcome the recession following the first one. When the wars were over we had multiple new ways (poison gas, aerial bombing and atomic weapons) to exterminate vast numbers of humans in an easier and less personal way. So what will be the cost of the information age into which we have thoroughly thrown ourselves?

In 1970 a book was published by Alvin Toffler called Future Shock that described the stress and disconnectedness that comes when change occurs too rapidly. (It was even made into a film for those too overwhelmed with information overload to read.) Although, I do not agree that most of the social problems in our industrial society are due to inability to accommodate rapid change, I do find some of the problems that it causes apparent in education.  For example, because it is much easier to produce new material, we make changes to curriculum – constantly – even thought  the improvement made is often out-weighed by the effort of the learning curve required.

During the seventies, I recall learning a new ‘language’ based on simple English phrases that would allow me, a relatively unsophisticated high school student, to communicate my commands to a computer. It was called BASIC. This language is one of those dinosaurs of the early information age that has not yet gone extinct, although it is relatively unknown today. I have lived through the birth of multiple changes to computing. Most students do not bother to learn this kind of technology in depth, but concentrate on finding the newest, latest app to make their life easier. But is life really getting easier? As we accelerate towards a rate of change in technology that makes much learning obsolete within a decade, the demands of constant relearning is bound to create new difficulties.

Several times recently, it has been brought to my attention that although students have the world of information at their fingertips, they do not know how to do research on the Internet. To tell the truth, research was in many ways easier before the Internet. There were fewer places to look and published works had to pass the review of a ‘gatekeeper’ or editors and publishers, that which helped to cut down on inaccuracies (at least those that were not wide-spread socially acceptable ones). However, I did have to actually leave my house, travel to a library and actually talk with someone face to face in order to do research.

But there is a price to be paid for the luxury of being able to have so much information available anywhere there is a wi-fi signal. There is so much duplication and so many useless dumbed-down articles churned out for the generation that is supposed to be suffering from short attention span. I was reviewing a short news video clip today and saw the same footage repeated three times within three minutes. It seems we are no longer suppose to remember anything without constant repetition. But that means we are taking longer to learn the same amount.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Posted in The information age | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Disconnected

Posted on June 19, 2013 by knlistman

068 laptopI used to view movies such as 2001: A Space Odyssey and Colossus: The Forbin Project, as completely improbable. As far as I was concerned computers were machines without autonomous thought; they had neither the capacity or desire to rule humanity. Today, we are surrounded by much smaller and more sophisticated computers, and imagine a world devoid of these devices as a dreary dark ages. Computers have not taken control of the humanity – we have given it to them.

Before I entered grade school, I knew something about computers. That may be ordinary today but unusual for someone born in the 1950’s. However, my father worked for General Electric in Louisville, Kentucky which housed one of the first non-government computers in use. At that time a computer was a bit intimidating, filling an entire room with rows of cabinets containing tapes for storage. It was a huge, main frame computer using vacuum tubes for circuits that had less power and speed than today’s hand-held devices. Add a few blinking lights and monotone voice and you have the image of a malevolent, super-intelligent machine with a human tendency towards egomania that the general public liked to frighten themselves with in movies.

Well, we haven’t exactly given control to the computer, but to the human-run corporations and organizations providing us with the apps, software, services and hardware. We have become dependent on constant internet access to find our way when driving, to entertain our children during the long drive, etc. We typically pay for these with cold, hard credit cards or a wealth of information that will provide companies the data to target us with special ads.

Because of the easy access to information, there is less need to remember what used to fill our heads or note books. We just need to know something general about a topic, details can always be found on Internet search engines. What do we give in exchange for this convenience? According to author Nicholas Carr, there is evidence that our thinking has been changed by the shallow nature of reading as we flit from site to site on the computer. We skim text and then dart off in another direction through enhanced text or attention grabbing ads. The residual effect – greater tendency to be distracted and lower tolerance for reading for an extended period.[1]

The same thing is true of videos; advice offered by Wistia video hosting states “Psychologists say that the average human sustained attention span is 20 minutes. But for online videos it seems to be about 60 seconds.”[2] Others may not claim that attention has been truncated to that extreme, but I have not found anyone recommending internet videos longer than 3 minutes.

With so much “short” material produced for the internet, attracting viewer attention requires additional flash. This distraction has another affect. At University of Kentucky, the authors of a study on ADHD have found increased exposure to electronic media increases ADHD in children and leads to social problems. According to Elizabeth Lorch “Why did an event happen, why did a character do this — that’s where the comprehension and recall of children with ADHD tends to fall down.” Co-author Richard Milich commented “This inability to see causal relations may affect this social problem we’ve known for 30 years.”[3]

The correlation of time spent on computer with increase in asocial behavior has been well documented. In 2004, The Annual Review of Psychology published research that indicated “greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participants’ communication with family members in the household, declines in the size of their social circle, and increases in their depression and loneliness.”[4]

Of course, I am not advocating that we return to the pre-computer dark ages. Rather we need to realize the problems that occur when our lives are constantly immersed in electronic media. We all need large chunks of electronic free time, when we sharpen old skills like non-interactive reading, writing by hand and talking face to face. E-free time needs to be set aside for everyday life and classrooms as well, so we practice how to stay connected like humans.

[1] Carr, Nicolas, Is Google Making Us Stupid? What the Internet is doing to our brains The Atlantic July/August 2008) http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/ (accessed December 12, 2012)
[2] “4 ways to keep viewers engaged in an online video”, February 7, 2011 http://wistia.com/blog/4-ways-to-keep-viewers-engaged-in-an-online-video/ (accessed December 12, 2012)
[3] “UK Psychologists Featured in New York Times story on ADHD” http://psychology.as.uky.edu/uk-psychologists-featured-new-york-times-story-adhd-0  (accessed December 12, 2012)
[4] Kraut, Robert; Patterson, Michael; Lundmark, Vicki; Kiesler, Sara; Mukophadhyay, Tridas; Scherlis, William. “Results of interaction depends on usage goals, however some characteristics unique to internet”  The Internet and Social Life, Annual Review of Psychology. Vol. 55: 573-590 ( February 2004)

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Posted in The information age | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Games make you smarter at what?

Posted on June 18, 2013 by knlistman

Picture 070 2 copyIf you have been paying any attention to news about using games for education, you’ve heard of Dr. Daphne Bavelier. There have been numerous articles repeating what she summarized in her TED Talk  – that research shows playing video games (the first person shooter type of games like Black Ops) improves brain function.

So recently I revisited this topic, trying to find if there were additional research articles to clarify these results. Unsuccessful, I listened to Dr. Bavelier’s presentation again. There was a nagging voice in the back of my mind that her words resembled something I had read before. As she repeated “step into the lab and really measure” each time before quoting research findings to debunk some myths about video games, the light switch came on.

I recalled a chapter I had read in Lev Vygotsky’s work on his well-known zone of proximal development theory. He described the short-comings of the stimulus-response method of research that was favored by other psychologist of his time. It depended on subjects responding to an artificial stimulus in a set of highly controlled tests which resulted in measurable data, but did not give a real clue to how the brain processes were developed. In other words, this method revealed only what subjects were able to do and not how they learned to do it. He referred to this as an attempt to fossilize a dynamic process.[1] This was the same result I was seeing with the research that Dr. Bavelier was describing.

According to Dr. Bavelier the skills gained were not just used in games but in the real world.  I heard how subjects  played games that improved  low contrast vision, which would help them drive better in the fog. [2] I expected to learn about the fog driving experiment, but it never occurred. Despite claims that the skills gained by gaming were real world skills, the tests were all presented in the same manner as games are played – on computer screens. The real world skills were simply extrapolated possibilities.

Gamers watched identical yellow smiley faces move across a screen, and identified if a particular one was one of those that randomly turned blue and sad (or psuedo-randomly as there are no real random events on a computer). They could take in information faster on this simulation of watching a group of children than non-gamers. However, that neither proved that they are more efficient or better at keeping track of real children. Why simulate? Put individuals from both groups in a classroom and have them teach a lesson while keeping a checklist noting the number of times a specific child performs a number of different actions that are targeted for change.  That is a real life task.

Every example of increased cognitive ability through gaming – such as claims that people who played electronic games were less distracted by surroundings or more efficient at a task – was shown by their performance at another game-like activity confined to a screen.[2] There was no mention of determining causation in these particular skills – no observational studies that would reveal whether people were drawn to video games because they could do these kinds of tasks in a virtual world or the other way around. The only time that this question of causation was mentioned was in connection with the basic skill of low contrast vision.[2]

In another experiment people who did not routinely play video games had to select the correct drawing of a 3-dimensional object rotated into another position from similar drawings. After several hours of game playing this skill improved.[2] I wanted to know how much more they improved than in the control group – those who took the same computer based test both times without the game playing in between. Both groups should have better scores the second time according to the practice effect. However, there was no mention of the control groups scores, leaving me to wonder if they existed.

A well designed experiment would have a randomly selected population that did not play video games (similar average age, gender and education level). This population would be tested on a range of skills: simulated situations presented by computers, situations using real people and materials, and established cognitive assessments. Then, half would play video games daily for an extended period of time and the others would not. At the end of the specified period both groups would be retested in same manner as the first time to measure the difference. There was no evidence that this occurred.

Finally, if there is no harm  in playing why did Dr. Bavelier advice moderation in playing at the end of the TED talk? The addictive quality of video games was openly admitted and that quality does cause problems. The only conclusion that I can gather from her research is that playing video games improves a persons ability in experiments measuring video game-like skills. But I imagine Lev Vygotsky would have looked at the experiments and gathered that there was a problem with the method.

[1] Vygotsky, L.S. Mind in Society, Cambridge, MA Harvard University Press, 1978 p. 59-62
[2] Daphne Bavelier: Your brain on video games. Filmed Jun 2012 • Posted Nov 2012 • TEDxCHUV (viewed Jan 10, 2013 and Feb 21, 2013)

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Posted in Education trends, Gaming in education | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Gaming the educational system

Posted on June 15, 2013 by knlistman

books_games 007 (2) copyOver the past few weeks, I’ve been reviewing research on playing video games in education. Actually, research on this topic has been going on for a while; it just has not been very conclusive.

For example, in 2002, researcher Ricardo Rosas examined what happened when hand held videos games were added to an elementary school curriculum in Chile. For half an hour each day, a group of students played adventure-based games in which they practiced recognizing words, spelling, and math computation. Another group in the same school went to  the same classes but had no game playing time. The game playing group showed marked improvement, but the other group showed the same degree of improvement.

Rosas theorized that both sets of students performed better because they knew they were being observed. Students in a control group at another school that were given the same pre-test and post-test without knowledge of the experiment did not have the same gains.[1]

In 2005, Robert T. Hayes of the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division compiled an extensive review of the literature about games for instruction. His first conclusion: “The empirical research on the effectiveness of instructional games is fragmented. The literature includes research on different tasks, age groups, and types of games. The research literature is also filled with ill defined terms, and plagued with methodological flaws.”[2]

This report goes on to state that games can help a variety of people to learn tasks in areas such as math, electronics and economics, but research on use of games in those areas should not be generalized, and there is nothing to support the idea that games are the best way to approach any kind of learning. The difficulty with educational games for K-12 is that students tend to use a game in ways other than to learn the intended objectives. As I read through the section reviewing research on this I had to suppress a painful laugh at one of the comments. Students playing Oregon Trail, a simulation designed to help them learn about life in a covered-wagon train were “shooting animals for the sake of shooting.” [2]

A 2006 study by Richard Blunt of Advanced Distributed Learning (Department of Defense) documented the results of adding instructional video games to three college courses: introduction to business and technology, economics, and management. About half the classes used the games as supplements. In these classes there were significantly higher grades without regard to gender or ethnicity, but this was not true in regard to age. Those over 41 scored significantly higher when they took the classes that did not include the games. Blunt suggested that people may learn best in the manner that they are most used to.[3] Despite the fact that these games where supplemental and not the main instructional event, Karl Kapp cited this report to support the idea that games can be basis of teaching in a recent article. His few quotes on why games can work in instructional settings, was far outnumbered by the quotes stating why lectures do not work.[4] But lectures and games are not the only two ways to instruct students.

Dr. Sami Kilic of University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, discovered a bonus for students who played video games up to two hours a day. Their improved hand-eye coordination enabled them to excel at the skill required to do technically advanced robotic surgery. When tested in simulators on other complicated surgical techniques that did not require the visual-spatial coordination, the resident physicians did much better than the high school gamers. [5] This is the most recent example in which video games encourage the development of a very particular visual/physical skill.

Many articles I read on learning through gaming propose the idea of taking the engaging element of video and computer games and converting them into something to make academic learning  equally addictive. What is lacking is the method to accomplish this. There was a similar grand idea about education; many felt that by changing students we could change the ills of the world. But rather than ending violence through education, we hear more reports of schools becoming unexpected venues of violence. So for now, we are just trying to get students to actually want to learn – and we hope that games can achieve this.

[1] Munger, Dave, Cognitive daily “Can video games stimulate academic learning? ” April 20, 2005
[2] Hayes, Robert T., The Effectiveness of Instructional Games:  A Literature Review and Discussion November, 2005
[3] Blunt,Richard, Does Game-based Learning Work? Results From Three Recent Studies, 2006
[4] Kapp, Karl, Learning Solutions “Once Again, Games Can and Do Teach!” March 4, 2013
[5] Goodman, Olivia, Young gamers offer insight to teaching new physicians robotic surgery November , 2012

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Posted in Education trends, Gaming in education | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The limits of e-learning

Posted on June 14, 2013 by knlistman

stollen (2)wWith the glut of information offered on the Internet, including  MOOCs (massive online open courses) offered free from prestigious universities like Harvard and MIT, many educators are beginning to fear for their lively hood. There are reasons that human educators will not disappear with onslaught of e-learning.

I sometimes hear instructors say that on-line courses are fine for basic learning but the personal interaction with seasoned professional is necessary for the complexities of advanced work. However, the majority of the “students” that earn a certificate from a massive open on-line course already have Bachelor’s degrees, and a significant chunk hold  Master’s degrees. Most of the courses are highly technical. Evidently it is the person who has spent more than their share of time listening to instructors that is willing to deal with the independent effort required to complete an on-line course on Artificial Intelligence.

As I watch participants slogging through a basic  on-line course on occupational safety, I hear their constantly shuffling feet and begrudging sighs. They would rather be learning anywhere else than plopped in front of a computer. They want to be moving around, making things happen, working with their hands and interacting with others. On the other hand, students that line up outside the computer lab an hour before it opens are actually used to producing their work (games, graphics, apps etc.) on the computer. It is a tool to use and not just a conduit for the somniferous “interactive” lectures. They are able to sit concentrating through boring files in order to start an adventure in new software.

What are the limits to e-learning?

1) Not all that needs to be learned can be learned on a computer. Anything that requires specific manipulation – from repairing a crumpled fender to playing a soul stirring Beethoven concerto – requires that people practice on the tools they will be using. Viewing a master performing his trade on a video followed by a”low level” simulation practice (screen touches or key presses substituted for the actual actions) is not sufficient. Watching a moderately proficient person perform in the flesh, and then attempting to repeat the actions while receiving feedback provides essential dimensions that can be lost in e-learning.

2) Not all learning is technical in nature. Dealing with humans requires experience dealing with living, breathing, unpredictable humans, not an avatar safely captured in an LCD monitor. Despite advances in Artificial Intelligence we cannot create reliable models for human thought processes because humans are a quirky mix of rational and irrational.

3) Not all learning can be measured electronically. We have long been aware that a bubbled-in Scantron is not necessarily a good reflection of students’ ability to perform authentic tasks in a particular content area. The same is true of assessment techniques used by e-learning, which typically reduce information to a level of memorization or simple analysis. Complex multi-step procedures requiring judgment are sometimes impossible to duplicate.

4) Finally, not everyone wants to spend their life working face to face with a computer. We often forget that the initial purpose of technological advances are to improve the lives of people by making them more efficient. However we need to be aware; advances in factory production during the industrial age lowered the cost of products and increased the work week. As the gathering information becomes a priority, more people spend their days  behind the screens. The coal mining that fed the furnaces of the industrial revolution is being replaced by the data mining that feeds the statistic hunger of industries in the information age.

The good news – instructors need not fear being replaced by computers. However, e-learning is still very useful to supplement face to face instruction. The bad news – the more time students spend learning on-line the more time instructors spend, reading posts, tracking data and trying to determine what students are actually learning.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Posted in E-learning, Education trends, Millennials, Technology in education, Zoomers | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Adventures in the electronic classroom

Posted on June 13, 2013 by knlistman

File:IPad 2 front view.jpg Some of the middle school students tumble out of their seats and rush to the portable cart as soon as the teacher announces “Today we will be starting to use the iPads.” Others hang back warily. The inclusion of new electronics that are small, lightweight, and easily handled is not so easy. A new set of classroom management techniques must be worked out. Required supplies now include headphones or earbuds. 

The students’ exposure to technology differs widely. Those with iPads at home are soon surfing YouTube. Others are more familiar with computers and curse at the small keyboards, while a few have yet to figure out how to get the keyboard to appear. As I provide support for struggling students I realize that very few actions are really “intuitive” to humans (except for things like crying and smiling).  No matter how intuitive a new product is touted to be, we all expect electronics to work in ways that we have learned before. 

The next difficulty to overcome – iPads usage requires more complex actions than are needed to open a book to a page number. The teacher who stood in front of the class and told the students which website to go to, was soon  forced to write the lengthy web address along with specific key entries on the board. Some still failed to type it in correctly. The idea to save paper through use of electronics was quickly scrapped by another teacher, who handed everyone a paper with both web addresses and QR codes. Students quickly learned to use the camera to capture QR codes… and their neighboring students’ faces. Still, one boy who had sat quietly taking notes (or so I thought) during the whole lecture on how to use the iPads could not scan the code. When I went to assist him I saw that the ‘notes’ where actually doodles. However, I could not get the camera to capture the code either. I was stumped until I saw the faint pencil tracing of a doodle encirling the QR code. 

In the true spirit of electronic age teachers insisted that work be turned in using the iPads. One had gone to the trouble of creating ‘tags’ with sign-ins for Outlook that were sealed with transparent tape onto each student’s planner. (Some still managed to lose theirs.) However, using e-mail is not second nature to these students. Many that are tech savvy use social networking (i.e., Facebook) to communicate despite being under 13. Others just rely on texting. Setting up Outlook accounts required individual attention for over half of the students. One girl managed to find her way into the personal information section (which was not necessary to set up the account as the parents has already signed a permissions slip) and completed it. However, she was then denied the right to use Outlook without a parent signing on and giving permission because of her age. She waved her hand wildly to show me the message.

“Did you put in a birth date?” I asked

“There was a blank for it.”

“Okay,” I sighed; undoing the entries was more difficult than simply altering them. “Let’s back up and change the birth date.” 

She stared at me confused, but too many students were pleading for help to spare the time for an explanation. “Touch the arrow to go back. Now, change the year to 1994.” She had a doubtful look but followed my instructions. There was even a prompt asking if the birth date needed to be corrected on the personal information page. After re-entering the year she was allowed to continue on to e-mail.

“Congratulations,” I said “You’re now eighteen.”

The boy in front of her turned around and grinned at me, as if he and I shared a secret. “You’ve done this before?” I asked.

“Of, course. How do you think I got a Facebook page?” he replied.

Photo by Tom Morris (CC 3.0)

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Posted in Education trends, Millennials, Technology in education, Zoomers | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is Internet access the new leveler of society?

Posted on June 12, 2013 by knlistman

economic_divide copyMost schools would love to have the complications of e-learning in a classroom that happen when the dream of an iPad for every student actually occurs.  But due to lack of funding they are scrambling to figure out how to use the internet enabled phones, e-readers and tablets that students are already bringing to school as a basis for electronic classrooms. 

So often I’ve heard “the overwhelming majority of students walk into school with an internet enabled device.” This is a nice optimistic sentiment, but not a working solution. If a school implements “BYOD” (Bring your own device) as a costing cutting strategy there are still expenses that sneak in the back door. Multiply the number of tablets, such as iPad, or e-readers, such as Kindle, that access a local wireless network and  suddenly the teachers are trying to show streaming videos that just don’t seem to stream. The increased internet demand necessitates new networking hardware to update the wi-fi infrastructure. BYOD may mean the school needs to purchase an expensive new server.    

Of course, if smart phones and androids are the major source of internet connection the parents will be footing a hefty bill for increased mobile internet usage. Research on children’s use of media shows that parents of low income families are less likely to use a mobile media device for apps or internet access.[1] Therefore, schools that can least afford an iPad for every student, serve populations in which many students do not have access to internet through smart phone or home computer. 

Unfortunately, this problem also occurs for a minority of students in schools serving predominantly middle class populations. I have seen bright, eager students from poor families failing to succeed in higher level classes when the teacher erroneously assumed that everybody had internet at home. The very student whom education would help the most is shut out by this kind of blindness. Existence of a parent e-mail address is no guarantee of a home computer. Every time I visit the local library I see the new computer room packed with adults – their only private internet access. New teachers from the middle class often have a hard time comprehending that in some districts 10 to 20 % of students do not have internet at home. Any attempts at instituting a flipped classroom dooms certain students to failure because they cannot watch recorded lectures or complete on-line activities outside of school.

As students move up the education ladder to high school and (hopefully) on to college or a technical institution owning technology becomes more essential. According to a study on student adoption of technology owning both a mobile device and a computer (netbook, laptop or desktop) is not only considered essential, but the computers are expected to be current models that are two years old of less.[2]  The difference in achievement based on the economic level of the student’s family is only magnified by this “digital divide.”

There is also a divide in how the wealthy and poor use the internet access that they do have. A Pew research study found that not only do higher income Americans own more different devices to be able to access the internet, anytime, anywhere, they are more likely to use the internet to research information and conduct business/commercial transactions. Those in the lower incomes brackets mostly use the internet for gaming, listening to music, or watching  videos.[3] This difference in applying technology – for entertainment or for performing a task – will continue to increase the divide. All the wealth of information on the internet is not exactly divided equally. 

Photos by K.N. Listman

[1] http://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/zero-eight-childrens-media-use-america/key-finding-2%3A-substantial-digital-divide
[2] http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers1006/rs/ers10064.pdf
[3] http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Better-off-households.aspx

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Posted in E-learning, Education trends, Millennials, Social media, Technology in education, Zoomers | Tagged , , | Leave a comment