Beware the Dangers of Digital Childhood!

I have continued reading, “Failure to Connect: How Computers Affect Our Children’s Minds—For Better and Worse” and been struck by all the considerations that are neglected by well-meaning parents and teachers

. I am referring to the dangers we subject childr

en to in placing them in front of computers without thought or guidance.

I am personally guilty of placing my own kids in front of a computer with a learning game, feeling better because they are not watching TV. I have also offered mindless “learning” games as a reward for students for finishing their work. In both of these instances, I realize I was operating under a faulty assumption. This faulty assumption was that computer “educational” games are helpful, and better than just simply playing. Rather, educational “games” for children present many worrisome risks that parents and teachers should consider.

Health Risks

According to Healy, there are potential risks to children’s vision (50-90% of frequent computer users have visual deterioration), and posture (children often develop a “hunch”), health (magnetic fields and radiation may harm children). Furthermore, children miss much needed physical exercise, which aids children physically, mentally, and socially.

Unfortunately, educational computer games promote virtual, rather than actual activity.

Learning RisksFurthermore, due to their developmental stage, young children who spend too much time on a computer may fail to develop the appropriate brain associations and schemas created during physical interactions. The brain responds to its environment, has sensitive periods where it moves from concrete ideas towards the abstract, and develops best when multiple body systems learn to interact in increasingly complicated situations. None of these happen when a child is sitting at a “learning” game that simply requires them to click, get shallow praise, and avoid deep thinking. Most educational games, at best, turn our children into “organic data processors”, who can spit out rehearsed facts without any real-world understanding. The risks to children’s brain development are real, and we ignore them at the risk of inadvertently harming our children.

Social and Emotional Risks
It goes without saying that too much of anything can be harmful. This is especially true regarding computer use for children. Children who spend inordinate amounts of time on the computer, playing games or “learning”, will miss opportunities to make social connections with other children. It is in these childhood relationships that children learn how to play nice, fight nice, listen, and relate. Without these opportunities, children can become highly antisocial and not know how to interact with other people. Luanne Traud, in her article, “Virtual Childhood for Real Kids”, bemoans the fact that kids are losing out on a childhood of neighborhood play and real relationships, for simulated relationships with fake pets and virtual friends. Kids need to get out of the house to interact!

Ban Computer Games!?
You are probably assuming that I want to do away with computer software for children. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Rather, parents and teachers simply need to quit treating the computer like a tutor, and realize it is only a tool. Parents and teachers alike must design how

their children and students use the computer. That's right--sit down and plan. Analyze the software that is available and align it to family, or classroom goals. Does the software promote higher thinking skills? Does it promote genuine creativity. Design a plan to use it that includes frequency, and solid connections to age-appropriate learning (standards). And adults should sit with them as they learn and talk to them about what they are learning! Only then will "computer time" be a valuable tool in learning for families and schools.

To explore this issue in more depth, you may want to watch the video discussion below.

Note: This is blog reflection #4 for Edtech 795B.

Failure to Connect ...In the Beginning

I've been reading a book recently called "Failure to Connect: How Computers Affect Our Children's Minds--For Better or Worse", written by Jane M. Healy, PH.D. It is an thought provoking look at the "often" thoughtless rush towards technology in education.

As an educator trained in instructional design and educational technology, this really caught my attention because NOTHING should be implemented in schools without thoughtful analysis of the product, and evaluation of the results. According to the author, however, analyzing and evaluating the results of technology initiatives is the rare exception in P-12 education. Some of the initial concerns of the author, which I happen to share, are:

Accountability and common sense are needed. Too often, technology initiatives are launched with little accountability, and a sheer lack of common sense. A good example of this is pointed out by the author as the US initiative to wire all schools for telecommunications (ie. Internet access) by the year 2000. All schools were wired, at enormous expense, based on the assumption that (Healy, 1998) "connecting kids to information will somehow make them more able to read and use it intellegently"(p. 19). This whole technology craze in education brings to mind the days of "irrational exuberance" in the technology stock market.

An example of technology implentation done better can be found in a case study by David F. Treagust & Leonie J. Rennie printed in The Journal of Technology Education, where six schools receiving technology money were allowed freedom to meet their own technology needs, and evaluated on success at the end of the grant period. In their study, three of the six schools met their own goals, but none of them recorded any statistically significant educational gains.

Techies, not educators, are gaining control. Another interesting point of the author suggests that educators and parents are losing control of the education of their own children. Rather, Technology companies, IT professionals, and mindless software itself are creating the agenda for what children are learning with technology. First, technology companies have a vested interest in pushing their product, and the software is usually created by non-educators. "Most is programmed by "techies"...who have little if any knowledge--or interest--in child development or educational philosophy"(p. 34). The concern is that software companies, mostly driven by profit, are having more influence on our children than we are.

Second, IT professionals in school districts are increasingly in control of what is being done with technology, rather than educators. In many districts, teachers are not allowed to install gradebooks, curriculum software (from textbook publishers!), or educational software without approval and help from IT technichians. Furthermore, they are severely limited in what websites they can utilize and must submit their choices to IT (non-educators) for approval.

Third, the software (or the students) itself is controlling what is learned, rather than the teacher. Healy shares many anticdotes where students were cleverly underchallenging themselves so they could quickly get to, or remain on, the fun games. In one instance, a boy was choosing simple math problems so he could play games. In that instance, the student learned that choosing the easiest path was the most rewarding.

Analyze and Evaluate, two key aspects of the ADDIE instructional design process, are the keys to make sure technology initiatives are properly implemented in schools and homes. If these are done carefully by instructional designers, rather than IT salesmen or technicians, our schools and children will be better off.

...

• Healy, Jane M. Failure to connect how computers affect our children's minds--for better and worse. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998. Print.
• Treagust, David F., and Leonie J. Rennie. "Implementing Technology in the School Curriculum: A Case Study Involving Six Secondary Schools." Ed. Mark Sanders. Journal of Technology Education 5.1 (1993). Digital LIbrary and Archives. Virginia Tech, Sept.-Oct. 1993. Web. 4 Aug. 2009. .

Note: This blog post is written to satisfy the requirements for Blog Entry #4, reviewing the first 1/3 of the above book. It should also be noted that I tried valiantly to keep the blog post under 500 words (but failed) while still making funny and relevant points. It is a tall order.

Google Wave...wave of the future?

Interesting, today I read about Google Wave which promises to be the "wave" of the future. Some are claiming it will be the end of email and other types of communication. Hmmm. Doubtful, but it may be an exciting option for people who are using collaboration tools. For instance, Google Wave will have the ability to allow synchronous or asynchronous communication, allow easy file transfer, and allow for extendability with gadgets. Since I just finished 2 years of using online collaboration tools, this should be very interesting to see as it rolls out. I, for one, will be trying it out. The image below links out to a presentation by Google.

Here is a link to "whatisgooglewave.com"if you want more information.

Note: This is NOT for Edtech 795B, although it might have made a good futurewatch post if I had time to work it out.

Let's Smash High School!

A smashing idea!

I think high school needs to be broken into two...or three, or four pieces! That's right! Smash it to smithereens! Of course while literally smashing high school campuses into pieces might delight the imaginations of teenage vandals, it wouldn't exactly solve any problems with our high school system. However, letting instructional designers develop a new multi-track system by breaking high school up into multiple tracks might solve numerous problems.

One size fits all?

If you ever spent any time inside a high school locker room, you know that one size definitely is not for everyone! Some kids are way beyond their years, while others are just starting to grow up. This same idea holds true when it comes to education. A one track and one topic educational system isn't for everyone. Multiple tracks in high school could solve this problem. By multiple tracks, I am referring to different paths that students take after middle school to refine their education. For example, students who are more artistic could take a "literature and arts" track in high school that expands on their more creative interests. Other students with a technological bent might to take a "science and technology track". It doesn't just have to be two tracks, either. School systems might return to the ROTC model for a track that puts students into a workplace environment part of the time where they learn from a future employer how to perform a job well. The more we allow our high school students to choose their interest, the more likely they are to remain interested in their education. A multiple track system can also be a life-line to those who have struggled with the "mainstream" educational track.


Come-on...Everybody is doing it!

Doesn't that phrase bring back those high school memories? Unlike smoking or drinking, however, there are valid reasons why everyone is doing it when it comes to multi-track secondary education systems. And while I hate to admit it, many European countries have been doing multi-track systems for decades.

In France, students can choose between a "stream" in science, economics, humanities, professional (think ROTC) and eight technical streams. In Germany, students are funneled into four different "schools" based on their academic abilities and interests. German students may enter apprenticeships in grade nine or ten. Other, more academic minded, Germans may stay in the "Gymnasium" until year 13 of their education.

So, my point is, why don't we do our research, begin to find out which societies are having the most success with their secondary systems, and begin pilot testing some of these systems in US districts. We will never know if it will work for us until we begin to research and bring back multiple-track systems in the US.

Hand over the keys!

Who better than to tackle this project than a team of educators…preferably trained as instructional designers. We can analyze the best track system model to adopt, design and develop a new model according to best theory and practice, put it into practice, and evaluate its success. Oh Yeah! I'm ready.

Note: This is for Futurewatch 4.

Wee Three Things...

You know the words...."we three kings have traveled so far....daaaa, da, da, du, da, da, da daaa". So it's not Christmas, although I do like Christmas as much as the next guy. But what I really want to talk about are the THREE THINGS. Yes, the three things that I love in instructional design. In fact, they have traveled a long way as well. What are these things you ask? They are performance analysis, principles of design, and learning efficiency. Let me suggest that these three things have a significant future in instructional design, and hopefully education as a whole.

Thing #1
Let me start with a little background on performance analysis in case this term is new to you. Performance analysis is a process by which individual or organizational performance is analyzed in light of deficiencies in knowledge, skills, and motivation. Performance analysts also search for environmental barriers such as disincentives to perform duties, as well as hindrances that make it hard for people to do their jobs. In other words, they fix organizations and people so they do their jobs as they should be doing them.

Star Light, Star Bright...
I think the future of this field is bright and has become mainstream in the corporate world. The growth area is in government, and education. This love of mine will need to be applied in government offices and school districts if our problems are going to be solved. It is not totally different than a previous topic I addressed where I lectured everyone on the need for ecological (or transformational) systemic change. within our school systems. This type of change process, which has been championed by Frank Duffy of Gallaudet University is fundamentally rooted in a total performance analysis of the district, department by department, with a an eye towards eliminating barriers to performance. Sooner or later, things will get bad enough that the public will start demanding that a true and impartial performance analysis be done on our public institutions. At least that is what I keep repeating over and over in my head.

Thing #2
Secondly, I love the principles of design. Humorously, the name which is traced back to Robin Williams of the Non-Designers Design Book, make an acronym which spells CRAP. Ironnically, Robin's own website doesn't abide by ANY principles of good design that I've learned. I'm pretty sure it is a reflection of her offbeat sense of humor.

But I digress, fortunately, for my purposes in education, this acronym can be retooled to say PARC, CARP, PRAC, or RPAC,...although I'm not sure how to pronounce the last one. So CRAP stands for the design principles of Contrast, Repetition, Alignment, and Proximity. Now I don't think these principles are on the cusp of educational research, but they are certainly not going away. In fact, as a fairly young technology educator I intend to propagate these to my students for use in design projects of every ilk. Now granted, there are many design principles that can be applied, but these ideas can help students design their posters and flyers, book reports and PowerPoints, and web pages and blogs. The sooner kids understand their are actually guidelines behind how something should look, the better off we will all be.

Thing #3
I am most passionate about thing #3 which happens to be a theory with practical guidelines called learning efficiency. This theory is grounded in a brain science called Cognitive Load Theory(CLT), which as been researched and formulated by the likes of G.A. Miller, W.G Chase, H.A. Simon, and John Sweller. Notably, John Sweller has summarized the findings of CLT research and packaged them into a neat and tidy little book called Efficiency in Learning: Evidence Based Guidelines to Manage Cognitive Load. This theory packs a punch, however, as the proven guidelines are spelled out in proven techniques for helping learners and instructors to maximize their learning. The goal is to NOT overload the learner's working memory so they don't lapse into a conscious stupor called cognitive overload. What has amazed me about this theory and the resulting principles is that educators, for the most part, don't really know about them. And this is love of mine is going to play a role in the future. As the public demands more accountability from teachers and schools, perhaps due to performance analysts picking everything apart, schools will need to prove that their methods for teaching are not just based on educational gurus trying to make a quick buck, but on educational science. For my part, I intend to teach these principles every time someone hands me a microphone in front of a group of teachers. Teachers need to know this stuff!

So in the end, the wee three things that I love will have to move forward with my efforts, and the effort of designers throughout the field. If instructional designers committ to play an active role in tthe educational field, using their skills and knowledge, then education will have a good opportunity for reform. If this doesn't happen, then education will be left up to the whims of politicians and beurocrats.

Note: This blog post was published as a response to FutureWatch #3 in EDTEC 795B.

Tomorrowland vs. the Apocalypse...Which is it?

Today, I decided to find out what "YouTuber's" had to say about the future of education. First, it must be said that nobody was very happy with the current state of education. I couldn't agree more. Our school system is, for the most part, controlled by entrenched interests and bureaucracies. The bean counters and technocrats are running the show.

Any Answers?
The second thing I noticed was that nobody really had a solution. Rather, I noticed two schools of thought. The first school of thought hearkened me back to watching Walt Disney's Tomorrowland videos. They were inspiring and made me feel good about the future, but they were wholly unrealistic. The same would be said for Evolution of Teaching and Technology or A Vision of K12 Students Today. These videos are interesting in terms of inspiring people to not give up hope, but they are based on idealized views of children and their abilities.

Kids are Kids
Having taught for 13 years in third, fifth, seventh, and eighth grade technolgy, I can testify that children are very much like they have always been. Yes, they have access to new gadgets, but they are not these amazing little prodigies that are constantly producing, collaborating, and yearning to transform their world. The reality is that they are kids who, just like generations before them, only want to do as much work as they have to. They can be motivated and spurred on by fantasic teachers, just as students have been motivated since the the time of Socrates.

Little Zombies

The second school of thought has our schools and children heading straight into the apocolypse, and dragging our nation down with it. According to this school of thought, our schools are creating mind-numbed zombies who will most likely ruin our nation because they have been prevented from achieving their full potential. Now, I must be honest and admit that I've probably labeled a few kids with this term while explaining certain student's educational status to fellow teachers, but it is probably a slight exaggeration. If you are persuaded by this school of thought, however, you may want to watch How to Survive a Zombie Apocalypse. It is very informative.

Anyways, back to my point. A Nation in Crisis: America's Educational System is Broken takes the "you are making zombies" approach, and paints a very bleak picture for education and our nation, without offering any real answers. The only answer I noticed in this video was that a parent revolt was needed. On that point, I agree since it probably would take a political revolt to change the current systems. That, however, is unlikely to happen so we probably need to work from within the system to bring out transformational systemic change.

Another Youtube video that depresses me is PayAttention. Now, I must admit that I love that video.

It is not accusing schools of creating Zombies, per se. Rather, it points out all the many things that teachers could do in classrooms if....

• students all had i-Pods, cell phones, laptops
• school districs allowed i-Pods, cell phones, and laptops to be used in school
• teachers had the knowledge and expertise to utilize these tools.

So when reality sets in, I only get depressed or frustrated from watching this video, and other videos like it.

Is the Future Bleak?
So you probably assume that I have a bleak view of the future. The reality is that I don't. I think eductors are changing and school districts are changing. It tends to be incremental, and often on a class by class, or school by school basis, but change is still happening nonetheless. Maybe there will come a politician someday who has the foresight to institute a policy of transformational systemic change for every district in the country. Maybe..., but I'll probably go watch that video again for inspiration. You know, the one on fending off Zombie attacks.

Note: This post was published in response to 795B Futurewatch 1.

Smashing a District!

Oh yeah baby! Let's take a sledge hammer to a few (errr...., most) school districts out there and see what happens. Am I sadistic? Possibly. I do get a small amount of joy imaging the process, but of course I am not actually talking about wielding a sledge hammer on brick and mortar buildings. Nor am I talking about just rearranging the track options for schools. Rather, I'm talking about adminstering ecological systemic change throughout the whole district.

Ecological systemic change is defined by Peter Eckel, Barbara Hill and Madeline Green, in their 1998 American Council on Education article, On Change: En Route to Transformation, as "change that alters the culture of the institution by changing select underlying assumptions and institutional behaviors, processes and products; is deep and pervasive, affecting the whole institution; is intentional; and occurs over time." Frank Duffy, professor at Gallaudet University and author of Dream!Create!Sustain!Mastering the Art & Science of Transforming School Systems describes this type of change as transformational change that,

"creates a school system that continuously seeks an idealized future for itself; and creates a future system that is substantially different from the current school system. That is, the system must be transformed."

Of course, this type of change is easier talked about than actually done.What Duffy is referring to is examining EVERYTHING in the district and starting over with a vast majority of district employees buying in. From my perspective, this is where the job gets hard. Teachers can be very difficult to change. There is on saying that teachers joke about in break rooms that "teaching would be easy if it weren't for the kids." The saying could be turned on it's head to say, "running a school district would be easy if it weren't for the teachers."

The tension is obvious. Like the proverbial horse being led to the water, teachers can't be forced into doing anything, even if everyone knows it is good for them. Teachers must be brought on board and WANT the change. This only happens when their is a very inspirational leader at the healm of the district, and most inspirational leaders tend to seek after the money, glory, or power. Some get all three...as in the case of President Obama.

So this brings me full circle. Everyone wants to smash their local school district, only to build it back up, but who is going to do it.

chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp

Of course, not many volunteers will not be forthcoming, so in the meantime, you can ponder what you are NOT going to look for in a leader by watching and reading about Steven Sonsino's Seven Failings of Really Useless Leaders. So when we know what we are not looking for in our tranformational leader, we can begin looking for leaders who are not "really useless" that will begin the tranformation process. Ha! Let's put that on the job description. "Looking for a leader who is not really useless."

Note: This post was published as a blog response number 2 in Edtec 795B. It focuses on ch. 21 from Trends and Issues in Instructionl Design and Technology.