Thinking even more about learning

If we accept that Carr may be onto something, then we must ask ourselves what behaviors, what learning the Net supports. It would appear that it is largely behavioral: the successful following of a link, the Facebook 'thumbs-up', the signal tone indicating an incoming SMS … all of these are positive reinforcements that Pavlov and, in particular, Skinner could be proud of. This point needs to be explored in more depth, but we would be remiss to dismiss this all as the jaundiced view of a luddite. Carr's point is that we are, in fact, rewiring our brains, and that this rewiring favours certain mental functions and capacities. If he is right, our understanding of education may be in need of revising … or saving, depending on how one looks at it.

Roszak, as we saw, made the case that it was our revised notion of "information" that makes the Net possible, and it is this notion that is undermining the institution of education itself. Carr is indicating that there is a body of sound, scientific, neurophysiological evidence to support Roszak's contention. It would seem worthwhile, then, to at least devote part of the time searching the literature to establish a foundation upon which a position can be taken, for if Roszak and Carr are correct, we may be in the process of undoing our understanding of the notion of education without even realizing it. We need to make a distinction, of course, between what the Net does best and what the Net can be used for. A shoe is not a hammer, but in a pinch it can be used to pound in a nail. A hammer may be better for pounding in nails, but if the window is open and it is breezy outside, it functions very well as a paperweight. In other words, it is not the tool in and of itself that determines its "best" use, rather it is the situation, the context, and the intent that best determines what is best. I believe we need to take a similar approach to the Net and technology-enhanced learning.

In terms of design, what works may be a reasonable enough approach. What is optimal may not be a matter of absolutivity but of relativity. In design, awareness of consequences and side-effects may be as important as knowledge about design itself or about the technology platform on which the learning is supposed to take place.

References
Carr, N. (2010) The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains, New York & London, W.W. Norton and Company.

Roszak, T. (1986) The Cult of Information: The Folklore of Computers and the True Art of Thinking, London, Paladin Graftin Books.

Thinking some more about learning

In reading Nicholas Carr recently, it became clearer to me that we need to look more closely at the relationship between learning and technology, in particular learning and the technology of the Net (hereafter used to refer to both the internet and worldwide web as we find them today).

One of the reasons for introducing technology-enhanced learning into the educational system was to take advantage of whatever it is that the Net has to offer. What is this? Carr maintains that it is not what we think it is. He believes that there is a growing body of evidence that indicates that our ability to understand is being challenged by the Net. What does this mean? Understanding is our ability to give meaning to the world around us, to our lives. It is a matter of establishing a frame of reference against which (hopefully) sound judgments can be made. These judgments may be about which smartphone to buy or about whether we invade a foreign country.

Every judgment we make has, to be sure, a factual component, but I suspect it has a moral component as well. (Which smartphone, or whether a smartphone says something about the buyer's view of the place of such technology in their lives and its potential impacts, say, on the environment. This is much closer to the moral dimension but is certainly not in the forefront of the buying decision. Where is should be is another issue that will have to be discussed elsewhere.) Understanding, hence meaning, is what makes our lives worth living, and so long as we have a why, as Nietzsche noted, we can endure almost any how. It is not a mere intellectual game, a cocktail-party sport, to consider what the world might become should we no longer have a basis for making a why-judgment.

The Net demands that we make many, quick decisions. Hyperlinking demands that we decide, at a minimum to-follow-or-not-to-follow. (That has become the question, but who cares any more about the Prince of Denmark?) This constant decision-making overloads the pre-frontal cortex to such an extent that the brain is more involved in deciding than it is in transferring material from working to long-term memory. If we do not do this, we no longer understand, for the underlying schema upon which, or against which background, long-term, life-relevant decisions are made is undermined. It atrophies. As Carr puts it, we become "mindless consumers of data" (p125). I'm not sure this is what we want going on in the classroom.

Reference
Carr, N. (2010) The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains, New York & London, W.W. Norton and Company.

Thinking about learning

Learning situations are especially complex. Everyone involved has his or her own predispositions, needs, wants, desires, experiential background, schooling, social environment and more, all of which impacts learning. Learning, we may say, is that process, in which the individual is changed (or is different at the end) in some way, be it in terms of knowledge, skills, competence, values, or their view of the world. In order to compensate for the variability of the individuals involved, a clearer understanding of the learning process itself can be helpful.

What is learning? How does an individual learn? What factors impact learning or influence learning? How are we able to take what we "learned" in one situation and apply it in another (transfer)? What roles does the mind or brain play in the process? These are the types of questions that a theory of learning should answer.

All theories are based upon certain assumptions that we make about the world around us. These assumptions are based on a number of factors, such as culture, language, or zeitgeist, among others. These assumptions sit deep and are, for the most part, self-evident, given, and unquestioned. For example, behaviourism, the dominant learning theory in the first half of the 20th century, postulates (assumes) that all learning manifests as observable and measurable changes in behavior. Cognitive learning theory, the most dominant theory in the second half of the 20th century, by contrast, attempts to explain learning in terms of brain-based processes, which are often compared to or measured against computers, an assumption which in turn is based upon a certain understanding of the notions of information and data processing. Constructivism, which is currently very much in fashion (in a variety of flavors), takes the view that the learner him/herself is actively involved and engaged in constructing his or her ideas and concepts, whereby language, culture, and experience all play significant roles in the learning process.

Unawareness of these underlying assumptions can lead us to conclusions that may not be as generalizable as we first thought. We cannot say that behaviorism is "wrong". There is a considerable body of evidence that documents that it works. We cannot say that cognitivism is "wrong", for here too there is much evidence that in certain situations and under certain conditions it works. The same applies to constructivism. What we can conclude from this is that there may not be one, encompassing theory of learning, or, it may be that certain theories are more applicable to specific types of situations or types of learning, whereas others apply in other contexts or situations. In other words, these may not be mutually exclusive theories, but could even be complementary. Unfortunately, we do not have enough evidence to know which might be applicable in which situations, but based upon the evidence that we have, it should be possible to make reasonable conclusions in this regard in relation to the given material, the given situation, and the goal that is intended to be reached.

Technology and education

Neil Postman draws support for his views on re-valuing education from Theodore Roszak who advances the idea that the educator's love of technology is in essence the undermining of the institution s/he wishes to strengthen. By exploring the folklore of computers, that is to say, "the images of power, the illusions of well-being, the fantasies and wishful thinking that have grown up around the machine" (Roszak, p9). His attention is directed to the fact that the Information Age has "now entered the educational curriculum in an aggressive and particularly insidious way which could distort the meaning of thought itself" (p10). He goes on to say, "The burden of my argument is to insist there is a vital distinction between what machines do when they process information and what minds do when they think' (p11). In fact, "If educators are finally swept into the cult [of information], we may see the rising of a generation of students seriously hampered in its capacity to think through the social and ethical questions that confront us as we pass through the latest stage of the ongoing industrial revolution" (p12).

Whereas the push of computers into the classroom was in the ethereal and evasive notion of "computer literacy", we have since then come to be convinced to a large extent that there now exists a generation of 'digital natives' (Prensky, 2001a, 2001b) who, having grown up with digital technology, now show a natural affinity for it, an affinity that is not shared (and sometimes implied not developable) in those born prior to 1990 or so. While there is little evidence to support Prensky's claim, there is a growing body of evidence that this generation does not exist, at least not in the form Prensky envisions it (see Kennedy, et al., 2007 among others). Nevertheless, it remains one of the most widespread and insistent notions circulating in educational circles.

It remains to be seen just what the computer in the classroom is good for. Experiments with programmed instruction, drill and repetition and the like have not brought the results originally promised by their creators. In fact, Roszak argues convincingly that the oft touted simulation, considered one of the more recent and even more powerful e-learning possibilities, may in fact do more harm than good by depriving the learner of the experience of both failure and the complexity of interaction with the real world. He is realist enough to know that the vast majority of education-leavers will not be entering the highly paid, exclusive segments of society, rather they will, like their forebears, be forced into marginal employment and socio-economic status. He insightfully points out:

"One might almost conclude from this fact that what the young most need to defend their interests in life is an education which will equip them to ask hard, critical questions about that uninviting prospect. Why is the world like that? Who made it that way? How else might it be? There are subjects that, when properly taught, help people answer those questions. They are called social science, history, philosophy. And all of these are grounded in the sort of plain, old-fashioned literacy that gives inquiring minds access to books, to ideas, to ethical insights, and social vision." (p72)

We have some serious re-thinking to do.

References
Kennedy, G., et al. (2007) "The net generation are not big users of Web 2.0 technologies: preliminary findings", ICT: Providing Choices for Learners and Learning [online], Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007, http://routes.open.ac.uk/ ixbin/ hixclient.exe?_IXDB_=routes &_IXSPFX_=g&submit-button=summary&%24+with+res_id+is+res19981 (accessed 2 February 2010).

Postman, N. (1996) The End of Education, New York, Vintage Books.

Roszak, T. (1986) The Cult of Information: The Folklore of Computers and the True Art of Thinking, London, Paladin Graftin Books.

Prensky, M. (2001) "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants", On the Horizon, MCB University Press, vol.9, no.5; also available online at http://www.marcprensky. com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants %20-%20Part1.pdf (accessed12 January 2009).

Prensky, M. (2001b) "Digital natives, digital immigrants, Part II: Do they really think differently?", On the Horizon, NCB University Press, vol.9, no.6; also available online at http://www.acpinternational-dc.org/articles/digitalnatives2.pdf (accessed 13 February 2009).

Technology in education

Neil Postman advances a passionate case for re-valuing education in America, but much of what he has to say would apply in other countries as well. For him, education, at heart, is about finding and developing shared meaning, as one finds, for example in narrative, one's story, a nation's story or any story for that matter: "Without a narrative, life has no meaning. Without meaning, learning has no purpose. Without a purpose, schools are houses of detention, not attention." (p7) The primary function of education, however, has been ever more directed to utilitarian aims, such as vocational qualifications or the more sinister 'employability'. The stronger such thinking becomes, the more educators are willing to take an engineering approach to education. If it is planned and designed properly, we will get the greatest value from it. Postman notes, however, that there is no one right or best way to " to know things, to feel things, to connect things" and he goes so far as to maintain that making such a claim in fact trivializes learning, reducing it to a mechanical skill. (p5) I couldn't agree with him more.

This attitude has much to do with our modern attitude toward technology, especially among educators. The zeal with which many advocate technology borders on religious, as he points out. For

"[…] at some point it becomes far from asinine to speak of the god of Technology in the sense that people believe technology works, that they rely on it, that it makes promises, that they are bereft when denied access to it, that they are delighted when they are in its presence, that for most people it works in mysterious ways, that they condemn people who speak against it, and that, in the born-again mode, they will alter their lifestyles, their schedules, their habits and their relationships to accommodate it. If this is not a form of religious belief, what is?" (p38)

What he advocates is 'a serious form of technology education' (p43), that is, 'making technology itself an object of inquiry' (p44), hence, the role of technology in technology-enhanced learning (TEL) or education in general is worth taking seriously and looking at critically.

As I've mentioned before ("IT Envy", 2011-12-09) we should be technology-enhanced education not technology in education. I believe it is critical to put technology in its place. Technology is a helpmate, not an end in itself, and when dealing with education, it is particularly important to keep this in mind. In part, it is the technology-centred, engineering-affine approach that is so often advocated that is the motivation for pursuing this particular thesis topic. One of the primary purposes of the thesis is to place the notion of design, a function of technology, soundly in the service of teaching, learning and education, not to be their master.

Reference
Postman, N. (1996) The End of Education, New York, Vintage Books.

Technology in education

Back in October 2007, the Economist held a "debate" on whether technology contributed to the quality of education. Even my own course at the Open University was almost named "Technology-enabled education" instead of "Technology-enhanced education" as it was in the end. Why? Because the word "enhanced" apparently convey positive connotations about technology's role in education, and this could give potential students the wrong impression.

I think this caution was warranted. Over the past few years (actually), I've been looking far and wide for a serious critical voice on the subject. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Ludite, but one has to wonder about the pervasive, unbridled enthusiasm for digital technology in all areas, but particularly in education. All this talk of "progress" and "revolutions" and "new paradigms" is getting to me, primarily because I don't know exactly what all these fans (a word derived from the term "fanatic", interestingly enough) are all so excited. I wonder sometimes what they are seeing that I'm not.

Technology in education is one of those "debates" that really isn't one. Too often the issues are phrased in such a way as to be against them is somehow denying a brighter future to our offspring. All the technology in the world can't make it brighter if the power goes out, and I'm wondering how many people there are left who can think without being wired, connected, tuned in, or networked? In other words, I'm much more interested in the healthy -- not hyped -- relationship between (digital) technology and learning.

If no one else wants to tell the Emperor he has exhibitionist tendencies, then I guess I'll have to. And if there is no pole of attraction for the doubters and critical observers, then I guess it's up to me to put one up.