Blurts

Consideration of whether or not technology hardware will serve educational ends as a production device as well as a consumption device has often been a flash point. Most recently, this topic has again focused on the iPad with some early tablet adopters now making the decision to move toward hardware with keyboards. It is obviously possible to write on a tablet, but the practicality of doing without a keyboard has come into question. Ease of use may encourage too much consumption and not enough production.

The promise of using technology to involve more of us as producers has existed for some time. With the introduction of more opportunities for online sharing, we knew something different was possible. This was a heady time with the promise of changes to commerce, politics, and education. It seemed worthy of a new label. Most would point to Tim O’Reilly’s term “Web 2.0”. As an alternative I liked the use of “Read/Write” web. Henry Jenkin’s “participatory web” also creates the right tone.

I think we are now backing away from this vision. The long tail is shrinking because of apathy and tools that offer content linking as a substitute for production. Content generation has given way to Facebook and Twitter linking. There are fewer bloggers and a substitution of Twitter discovery for the use of RSS. This trend has given rise to the development of Nuzzel which basically counts the number of times those you follow on Twitter link to the same address. If the individuals noting the value of a particular page in their tweets did not immediately get your attention, perhaps the Nuzzel totals will. For me, the value of Nuzzel is not the list generated from those I follow, but the lists generated by other users which tap into a different group.

I wish the educators who are big into promoting coding, but do not code themselves or who argue that generative student projects are valuable, but do not generate content themselves would think about this situation. Educators should have more to say about their practice.

I just read a story describing a negative classroom outcome attributed to the availability of technology. The outcome did not surprise me. What I want to comment on is the manner in which the study has been reported and my concern that those who do not read and think about a full description may draw the wrong conclusion. The study concerned a performance difference of students who had and did not have access to technology during class. Here is what is important to recognize. These were college students enrolled in a large, lecture class. Having taught such classes for most of my career, I am not surprised by the outcome. Students in such a setting are pretty much free to do what they want and many take the opportunity to see what is happening on Facebook or whatever other social media site they follow.

What concerned me was the first report I read of this study was accompanied by a picture of young students in a classroom. I would propose that the supervision, expectations, class size, and many other differences exist between these two situations. Would I as a large, intro college class lecturer make a comment to a student I knew was checking Facebook rather than listening to me? No way. My expectations were that the student could use the time and he or she wanted as a matter of personal responsibility. In reality, I would likely have given the student credit for coming to class in the first place even if he/she was unwilling to give me their full attention. I doubt many middle school teachers would react in the same way. I also would not expect the middle school teacher to be dealing with several hundred students and be expected to keep their attention for an hour or an hour and a half.

Here is another post citing the MIT study. I hope my comments make some sense and explain why generalizing from this study to other settings is misguided. I sometimes wonder if writers pick up on the general message and with an agenda match one interpretation of the outcome to this agenda. Honestly, even in introductory courses, we try to explain that the key to understanding research is to carefully read the methodology and consider how the circumstances of the study influence the outcome.