Education

If the person who designed the study isn't Internet literate it's very unlikely that the study will reveal anything that makes sense. We have this new and unique way to approach learning and understanding, the old methods just don't fit. Gaia is growing a brain, no point stopping now.

Best post ever.  This is not only a marvelous rant, but also a constructive manifesto about the need for technology in schools.  Absolutely love it.

@ClayBravo! and bravo again!  I'd love to see you and Gary Stager in the same room and video tape the rants.  Passionate, to the point, and a fabulous rebuttal.   
The bit on reading on the web is great.  I had one of my teachers complaining last week that these kids don't read.  They rolled their eyes and then I asked them how many read something on line last night and learned something new.  They all raised their hands.  

This was an excellent read.  I just want to add a comment, from the perspective of a senior who goes to a cyber school.  (Haha, I'm reading for pleasure - and about education.  Fancy that?  :D)

"Reading for pleasure, which has declined among young people in recent decades, enhances thinking and engages the imagination in a way that visual media such as video games and television do not, Greenfield said."

When I went to a regular public school, I did not generally read for pleasure because too much homework was assigned for me to have any time for it.  From the time I got home, until the time I went to bed, I usually had reading, papers, questions, study guides, projects, and other things that I had to work on, for at least four classes.  I worked hard as a student then, and I work hard as one now.  I love reading for pleasure, if not entirely because of technology.  Not only do I find books online to buy at a store, but there's tons of things to read for free online.  I read more now, than I probably ever did when I went to a brick-and-mortar school.

I'm also offended as an artist wanting to go into the gaming/entertainment industry.  Upbringing and culture, encourage imagination in a way that printed words simply cannot (at least for me), and I honestly can't learn about these very well from books.  Books are limited, an abridged version of what the internet can teach you (about some things).  It's just about properly utilizing the tool to learn in the class room, entertain in the home - this goes for both computers and books.  Books need help if you want us to read them, and we’re not just gonna degrade to them because some studies say so...  Computers need help if you want us to learn on them, and use them properly in the class room.

"Studies show that reading develops imagination, induction, reflection and critical thinking, as well as vocabulary,..."

This one is just generally silly, the internet allows plenty of room for picking up on all of these things.  Art, writing, reading, poetry - how many of thse things have huge communities dedicated to them?  Do these sites not inspire?  Do blogs that pose intellectual questions not make us think critically?  Are there not sites completely dedicated to dictionary and thesaurus resources out there?  I mean, nothing beats reading something online, not knowing a word, and typing "define:____" into google, and knowing what it means in less than a second, right?  (Okay, maybe utilizing that word in an essay, and making your teacher go "wow" does.  ^_^;)

"Schools touting themselves as “21st century schools” and banging their laptop program drums "

...Technically, ...it's an mp3 file, not a drum.  :)

Anyway, forgive me, I'm rambling and it's almost 2 am...  Kudos for this, it made me think critically.  (Haha! :) )

R.R. good read, I am an old person myself in my 70s, I am a high school dropout.  Education in the meat space world of the 1940s was mostly arguments from authority, government propaganda and religious non sequitors. So as soon as I could escape the schools, I thought of them as prisons of the spirit. My real education got started, until the invention of the internet I read on average a book a day, many days more then 1, I worked at hundreds of different jobs in a lot of different industries.. It was a glorious trip, now that the internet is getting to run better and better my learning has accelerated even more.

Is it too early to make nominations for "Most Influential Blog Post"?

I'd be interested to see how critical thinking can be modeled by students who might use the very technologies cited, in order to draft responses to "Is Technology Producing a Decline in Critical Thinking and Analysis".

Then we could compare these works with the objective analysis of a group of pen & paper equipped students!

"Why does this "research" deserve a full aerial assault? Because it's going to be used by reactionary clock-turn-backers, with no pedagogical experience with laptop learning, to oppose pulling our 19th century classrooms into the 21st century."

Clay, as one of your biggest fans who also happens to be a reactionary clock-turn-backers (though with a little bit of pedagogical experience), let me thank you for a marvelous attack on a blowhard piece of science.

I just want to remind folks that some of us Luddites recognize books as technology, know a huge shift is occurring in technology, actually use (some) of the new tools, and wince when  the magazine Science lends credence to huff-puffery.

I'm more worried about the technophiles who jump all over this (warranted) with their own mishmash of religious fervor than I am by anything a thoughtful blogger might post.

It's been awhile since I sat in a Friends (Quaker) meeting. The local meeting is unprogrammed, which means we sit silently for an hour or so. Occasionally someone will speak if so moved, but most times little (blessedly) is said.

The first few minutes I am incredibly twitchy, and cannot settle down until I remember I cannot settle down by trying, then am content to watch the sun beam creep across the bench in front of me.

I stare out a window looking at a tree. A few telephone lines run by it--I think about the tremendous amount of information that passes through those lines every minute. Then I think about the tree.

Both are marvelous things, the human wire, the mystery of trees, and both hold vast amounts of knowledge. The wire is ultimately knowable, the tree ultimately not.

Bombing imagery in the context of a Quaker meeting jars, so let me gently stir the pot with a few thoughts on the responses your post engendered:

1) Betty speaks of a wonderful form of multi-tasking, but I'd argue that is more the use of multiple tools for a single task. In the olden days we called it conversation, and conversation is a phenomenal tool for extending thoughts, no matter how it's done. Maybe "deep multi-tasking" is better labeled as "enrichment multitasking."

Driving while using a steering wheel, the pedals, my ears and proprioception, is all focused on the same end. Driving while chatting on the phone has two separate ends. I consider the latter "multi-tasking," but not the former, but maybe I'm just confused.

2) Rodd confuses the issue, and sets up a false dichotomy--pencil and paper does not preclude critical thinking, and higher technologies designed to write (word processors, for instance) do not necessarily help, though I do admit they make the task of writing easier.

I also might add that adults is a subset of students, and that more than a few of us age-challenged still call ourselves students.

(Oh, and Newton Einstein both used pen and paper--a cheap argument, true, but not a pointless one.)

)n the other hand, I'd love to go to a pub with Ron and buy him a Guinness.

And R.R.? It's young adults like you that allow me to sleep easier at night. Don't let the older folks offend you too much.

Oh, one more point--Gaia has a brain.
Humans are growing a network of information that is marvelous and fun and all kinds of things. But we're not Gaia--we're just a tiny part of it.

(Hubris is going to get us kilt.)

Is it me, or is this article all over the place? They argue that video games are bad because most are violent and in the **next paragraph** talk about how video game skills can help surgeons. That's the worst example, but the whole article to me seemed to bounce between praising technology and blaming it.

Your bomb six was the big killer for me--simply adding any tool to a classroom, be it a textbook or internet or SMARTboard or erasable pens without appropriate pedagogy and support for the teacher does not enhance learning. Duh. It's a *tool* people, and like any tool its value comes from how we, the intelligent beings, use it.

Why is any of this news?

Not necessarily hubris Michael..  a living organism is self organizing, the parts are each self directed though related to one another in an integrated functional unit. Big problem with meatspace education is the division of knowledge into compartmentalised segments with no obvious or necessary connections among them... leads children to scattered thinking, such scattered thinking leads to financial meltdowns like the current one because no one can gain a comprehensive knowledge how things work..

I said growing because that's what living things do, if I had said we are building or creating or making a brain for Gaia then that would be hubris because it would deny an obvious element of knowledge.
I have written about this here:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1242517/cyberspace_nation.html?cat=9

That's the problem Michael, we treat humans as if we were not a part of nature.. as if we were not a part of the earth.. It starts for us as western world view folks with Genesis in the Bible where humans are told to fill and subdue the earth to have dominion over every living thing this sets us apart as if we are not a part of the integrated wholeness of what is. That's a bad idea and it's the source of most human and ecological problems. It may be that our self consciousness is the self consciousness of the universe, it may be that we are the universe being aware of itself.

Clay-  sorry for being so absent in the world of words I came to love this past year.  I was doing ok in the midst of this PERFECTLY SCHOOLY grad degree...  up until the point I had sweet little babe #2.  That has been more than amazing.  However, it has kept me from interacting with the two cyberblabbers I love most. 

I have had this post open in a tab since you published it.  I only now read it.  I knew from the seven second skim that this was a keeper, so I kept it open until I could breathe.  This is so good.  It is funny reading your words in a different frame.  Odd how it changes tone ever so subtly.  That is exactly why I compose in a browser window as opposed to the safely of a word processor.  When I write online things change.  I like to use that.

Anyway... enough personal reflection.  Keep up the good work here, and good to see MD (funny initials given history) here tearing things up as well.

Sean

Clay,

I think you hit the hammer on the head when discussing how teachers use technology in the classroom. To play the devils advocate a little bit here lets take the following and put them in place:

1. What do most schools use technology for?
In more than one occasion I had teacher at my high school decided that they wanted a day off from lecturing and therefore put in a video. Sometimes the video dealt with the concepts other times it did not. So in looking at how teachers use media it could be because of ignorance, lack of vision or no motivation for learning that would create negative results in this study.

2. What does going to a 1 to 1 school mean?

This is a quote that I heard form an admin not to long ago about defining what a 1 to 1 school is:

-"What that basically means is every kid has a laptop and uses it in class."

Can I get a WTF?

To expand on that, I have been in conversations with other education professionals, and on more than one occasion heard that at a 1 to 1 school taking a place where students take notes and create PowerPoints. So in the current school climate (based on ignorance of the tool at that they potentially have) the study could have a great point.

I guess what I am trying to say is that YOU have a vision. YOU know how to use the tools that makes good WEB 2.0 teachers effective. But you are currently  not the norm (sadly) and without the spread of knowledge on how to make take advantage of these tools then the study could be write.

I am an avid supporter of you and your work. And want you to have express the furry that you have in making this type of learning work. But the next question is how do we get people to listen?

Take this for what it is worth! One love!

Jason

Clay,

I loved reading this post. I get so frustrated with this kind of watered-down, pop-science. Your dismantling of the piece is a thing of beauty. The only observation I'd add as a instructional technologist is the simple aphorism that you get what you design. If people design boring, process-driven, mindless "learning" experiences for students (with or without technology!), they shouldn't be surprised that students hate it (or quickly tune out when there's something more interesting to do, like browsing the web).

This is all simply a design issue and virtually ever technology at our disposal is a design tool. If we want critical thinking we should design learning activities that promote and assessments that gauge critical thinking, using the appropriate mix of technologies. Technology can't do anything by itself, but it seems to be an increasingly convenient bogeyman for people who don't want to do the hard work of improving learning design and reforming education so learning--and not teaching--are the center of it all.

Thank you for writing this! On my blog I compared Prensky's new article on Digital Wisdom to this http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=705&action=login 

Clay,
I’ve been sitting on my hands for a few days wondering how and whether I should respond to this post.  I have watched increasing promotion of it on Twitter and through blogs and felt a strong desire to come here and respond in the comments.  I’ve read through your post and the comments many times in an attempt to compose my thoughts in a reasonable manner.  I admire your enthusiasm and commitment to making a difference in the world, through hands-on engagement with learners.  You have a strong following and a well-recognized voice in the field.  Some of my dearest friends and people I admire most are promoting this post and so I spent considerable time thinking of an appropriate response.
You obviously feel passionately about your post and hope to generate discussion and action.  I was surprised to see you mention in the very first paragraph that you had not even read the study.  To me, this is a huge issue and one that would lead me to instantly be cautious of a rebuttal. Yet, I find the readers accepting and promoting your post as something of high importance.  Not only did you admit to not reading the study, you claim to have read a summary of an article about the journal article about the study.  I tend to be extremely cautious with evaluations so far removed from the original source.   I’ve gone back to read the 4-page sciencemag.org report on the study, and the article you reference has greatly misconstrued the original intent and language of the study.
The second thing that bothers me is that for educators advocating for inquiry learning, the headline, “Is Technology Producing A Decline In Critical Thinking And Analysis?” ought to be an exciting stimulus to valuable educational discourse.  When I read that heading, I automatically think of opportunity, not “Code Red.”  What a great article to bring straight to students to let them locate original sources, context and discussion and discover their own meaning.
Thirdly, I found your rebuttal surprising, in that it is essentially the foundational “ed-tech manifesto,” with language that has been used in this debate for at least a decade. Your arguments include the same content of a million ed tech blog posts.  You’ve not introduced anything new, nor encouraged critical thinking.  Both sides know there are good and bad examples of technology use.  Debating their examples of improper use with your examples of successful adoption neglects to address the real issues of inadequate administration and teachers, and technology adoption that does not take into consideration the individual circumstances in every classroom, school or other learning environment.
My fourth concern is that you mention, “All sorts of ed sites are giving totally unquestioning air time,” yet you don’t provide any links to these sites.  If you truly feel the desire to spur action on the part of your readers, it might be nice to guide them to conversations where they can engage with those on the other side.  Bringing a passionate stance to those who already follow and agree with you will not lead to education transformation.  If this study has the chance of making the impact you foresee, isn’t this a huge opportunity to introduce your philosophies to those who are unfamiliar with your work?
I want to know what we can do to bring these sides together to discuss opportunities for real educational research, sharing of resources and data and collection of success stories linked to data that will help educators determine the best technology opportunities for learning with their individual populations.  I applaud your enthusiasm and passion, but I do question your approach to this topic and wonder if there may be a better way to spread your message to those who have not heard it and adopted some of your successful strategies.  I do think there is merit in questioning the current state of educational research, as well as the quality and accuracy of the online reviews of studies.  I think that part of your message is valid, but also makes it even more surprising that you are debating an article so far removed from the research.  The original article features 56 references, so readers have ample opportunity to do more research and debate. I would encourage others to read it before heading out to the blogosphere to debate articles five times removed.

When critiquing a review of an article that suggests people are doing less deep reading, you open with "I haven't read the study itself, only the Science Daily summary." I love it. Perfect.

I'm still trying to get my head around this one. I spent some time trying to find the original article to see what it was really about. Here's what I found.
You wrote a critique.of a summary lazily republished by science dailythat was originally written by UCLA as a press releaseabout a journal article.
There's a few degrees of separation there.
The actual journal article isn't anti-technology at all. It's actually quite nicely balanced, framing issues of media literacy and relevance of student assessment.
http://tinyurl.com/d98wfn
It's a short read. Well worth it.

to D'Arcy: sounds awesome!  I'll go read that article... oh wait...

"24 hours access to this Science article [costs] US $15.00 from your current computer."

On second thought, thanks but no thanks.

fair enough. but if you couldn't read the article because you don't have access, the RED ALERT should have been something like "federally funded research locked behind pay login" - not a critique of a press release about an article, chock full of rhetoric and urgency.
I'm not about to write a critique of something I haven't read, and I'm surprised at the activity this one received, given the article admittedly wasn't read. How does a critique like this help anything?