As I begin typing this blog I would like to thank the advances of technology for word processing and spell check! Both of these tools have relieved me from the cognitive burden of spell-checking and the difficult motor skill of writing with a torn collateral ligament in my thumb. It's under these circumstances that I can agree with David Jonassen comments that we should form partnerships with technology and use them to assist us with cognitive burdens. He writes that the educator's goal should be to "allocate to learners the cognitive responsibility that they do best, while we allocate to technology the processing that it does best." When did Jonassen write this statement? I wonder if this is a belief that carries over from his first edition in 1996? Did he base this statement on the computation capabilities of computers in 1996? In 1996 PC's were still running regular Pentium processors; although powerful, they are nowhere near the capabilities and efficiency of today PC's. Computing today is exponentially different than 11 years ago and as a result, computers can accept more of the learner's cognitive processing. Though I agree with Jonassen, I have concerns as to how offloading processing will affect the learner? Whereas technology of the past may have shared a reasonable role in its "educational partnership" with the learner, today it can assume a greater role. Where does that leave the learner and what are instructors doing to ensure that the partnership is fair? How will instructors ensure that the tools provided are used appropriately?
As a concept, the use of technology to relieve the learner of cognitive processing is a practice that appears to have practical applications. The WWW for example has made it possible for anyone with access to the internet to find answers to questions instantly. For instance, I just "Googled" the words: "tenth US president" and in less than 10 seconds I was able to learn that John Tyler was the 10th president of the United States. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jt10.html) I did make an assumption on accuracy but with the top ten results all listing John Tyler, it was a safe assumption. So how does this apply to cognitive load? I believe that now more than ever, instructors need to move into teaching towards a performance context. Instruction needs to account for the technological partnership and request that the learner do something with the information. Let's make learning relevant to the millennials and focus on transferring knowledge from the learning context into today and tomorrow's performance context. (Check out this video… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o)
I was recently asked to help an elementary instructor as he struggled to comprehend why the majority of his students failed a test that required that they list the 50 United States. My initial question was why? Why do they need to list all 50? What is the point to this assessment? Is there a context in life that will require the majority of people to list all 50 United States? With our state of technology and on demand access to information, how relevant is it to require children to memorize a complete list of 50 states? I believe it is important to recognize the states and their relationship to the Union but disagree with the method in which I have witnessed some elementary teachers inculcate, or at least attempt to, this trivial skill. One of Gagne's critical learning conditions for this domain of information is to provide a meaningful context. With the internet as the student's partner, I suggest moving away from reciting or listing the fifty states to creating a unit instruction that accepts the technology tool and engages the student in a process of thinking – not memorizing aimlessly. Accepting technology as a partner will require shifting the learning environment from the traditional approach of production to one of performance and process. Regardless if the educational partnership with technology was engaged by or forced upon the instruction of an instructor, as computers and technology continue to relieve students from cognitive burdens, a greater effort must be made to advancing our instructional strategies and find other ways for learners to think.
Jonassen, David H. (2006). Modeling with Technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc..
Posts
3 comments:
Oscar,
You bring up some interesting points about classroom practices that are still very much evident in schools today. A change is needed but it takes one teacher at a time. Small changes in the system eventually become bigger and bigger changes that permeate the system.
Dr. Fritz
Oscar,
This response focuses on your first paragraph. I believe that Jonassen had envisioned the exponential growth of technology, so hence his ideology from his first edition probably does not change to the third edition. But it seems that some terms like "educational partnership" between the user and computer came in the latter. In 1988, I doubt too many practitioners saw the use of computers to initiate cognitive change. But in our second generation of the world wide web, there's so much interaction happening that makes this possible. If in fact, Jonassen makes the assertion that students learn by interaction, then podcasts, wikis, and blogs are a vehicle in which to obtain learning.
Today, I attended the PMEA (Pennsylvania Music Educators Association) District 12 conference. I sat in on a session that dealt with FREE music software. There was one program that was fascinating. It allowed students in a class to create podcasts about their school music programs that could be shared to students anywhere in the world. You could include information about your school population, show clips of the concert and marching band, your music program, etc.
Talk about advances in technology!
Hey Oscar,
The part of your blog that focuses on memorization of facts and the fifty states had me thinking. While I do agree that teaching practices should evolve with the currently evolving student, I personally believe that rote memorization still has its place in education (specifically, elementary ed.).
For example, let’s talk about the times tables. I memorized them. You [probably] memorized them. Dr. Fritz [probably] memorized them, etc. We can do math. But as I memorized those facts as a kid, I’ll admit that I probably did not have a good understanding of what multiplication actually was. That is where theorists will stick it to me. However, my rebuttal would be, “So what?” Perhaps my mind was not developmentally ready to understand multiplication at that period in my life. Instead of gaining an immediate understanding, I was equipping myself with those times tables for use at a later time when the concept finally did click and make sense. In the meantime, I was still able to function in class procedurally because I had those facts.
Many current middle school kids were taught the “new” math, which did not require memorization of times tables. The goal was to teach them an understanding of multiplication. Some flourished. But what happens to those kids who don’t get it? Or who are not yet developmentally capable of getting it? Not only do they move on with a weak number sense, they move on without the basic skills necessary to at least function procedurally. The result is kids in eighth grade using their fingers in pre-algebra. I’m sure it is frustrating for a student to manipulate equations, solve for variables, reduce fractions, etc. when he or she can’t do 3 X 6.
I’m not saying we should abandon an early conceptual approach to math. I’m just trying to say that lower-order thinking skills are just as important to the development of young minds because, as teachers, we don’t always know where those young minds are developmentally or if they are even capable of higher-order skills at that particular time in their lives.
Take it for what it’s worth . . .. I’m not even a math teacher. :)
Post a Comment