In the article by Mayer and Moreno (2003), they stress two things: 1) that multimedia instruction should be designed to minimize cognitive load; and 2) that it is important to understand how people learn. Even though it is presented in a different style (journalism rather than scholarly writing), the piece by Seligman (2006) examines similar issues. Seligman integrates the experiences of a number of parents, their children, and scholars into her discussion. What stands out is that the children alternate between tasks (multitask), which increases their cognitive load. Even though some of the children Seligman interviews recognize that they are able to complete tasks more quickly when they don't multitask, they claim that they get "bored."
Researchers, like David Meyer at the University of Michigan, have studied the multitasking phenomenon. As a result of his work, Meyer found that individuals who attempt to complete multiple tasks at the same time show "costs in performance." He states that in his studies these multitaskers took more time to complete tasks and made more mistakes in doing so. Also in this article, there are those who compare "zoning out" on a computer to drug use, and refer to today's technology savvy children not as the Net Generation (or other such variations) but rather as "guinea pigs." So, while multimedia instructors are attempting to create designs that minimize cognitive overload, many students are thwarting these efforts by purposely placing themselves in cognitively taxing environments. Are these young people doing this as a way to seek out cognitive challenges (e.g., Steinkuehler, 2005 and her discussion about cognition in MMOGs), or are parents right to be concerned about their children's "excessive" use of computers and technology?
Going back to the Mayer and Moreno piece for a moment, the model they present in Figure 1 (p. 44) reminds me of Broadbent's information processing diagram that is presented on page 92 of Howard Gardner's book, The Mind's New Science. Is there a connection between the two? Just curious.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Planning for the Neomillennials
Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles. Educause Quarterly, 28(1), http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0511.pdf
Because I am in the group that is "channeling" Chris Dede during the panel discussion on Monday (10/1), I decided that this piece might provide additional insight into his thoughts on neomillennials and their learning styles. Much of the article is similar to the piece we read for last week that appears in the volume by Oblinger and Oblinger (Educating the net generation). The most noticeable difference, though, is that Dede spends less time outlining the various types of immersion in this week's article, which struck me because I enjoyed Dede's discussion about Salzman's FORs. That having been said, though, there are a couple of interesting statements that Dede integrates into the mix.
On page 7, he states, "Further, in the long run the mission and structure of higher education might alter due to the effect of these new interactive media." For the past year and a half (approximately), I've been working with a group that's been investigating the experiences students have in IT-related disciplines, including LIS and IST. This past spring, I interviewed 60 students at five different academic institutions in the U.S., and one thing was mentioned repeatedly: academia is broken! Undergrad and grad students alike said that the focus in academia is on research at the expense of teaching and students. So, while Dede's technologically deterministic statement may be correct - that new media may ultimately alter the structure of higher education - he might also want to take into consideration that there may be other contextual factors (e.g., people, work practice, environment) that go beyond the technology that may also spark changes in academia.
For example, in the piece by Oblinger (2003) on understanding new students, she suggests that these individuals are not passive consumers; rather, this group of new students use their "purchasing power" (p. 42) to evaluate programs and institutions. Oblinger also points out that these individuals have "developed new attitudes and aptitudes as a result of their environment" (p. 44). Therefore, customer service expectations combined with the "information age mindset" may be powerful enough to change not only what we typically envision when we hear the words "higher education" but also the environment itself.
On a side note: Oblinger mentions "generalist faculty" (p. 42) who respond to students' questions when the course instructor is not available. I had to read this section several times to get my head wrapped around this type liaison between faculty and students. It would be fascinating to read about the experiences of these generalist faculty to better understand how this process works and to hear their opinions about the role they play in student learning.
Because I am in the group that is "channeling" Chris Dede during the panel discussion on Monday (10/1), I decided that this piece might provide additional insight into his thoughts on neomillennials and their learning styles. Much of the article is similar to the piece we read for last week that appears in the volume by Oblinger and Oblinger (Educating the net generation). The most noticeable difference, though, is that Dede spends less time outlining the various types of immersion in this week's article, which struck me because I enjoyed Dede's discussion about Salzman's FORs. That having been said, though, there are a couple of interesting statements that Dede integrates into the mix.
On page 7, he states, "Further, in the long run the mission and structure of higher education might alter due to the effect of these new interactive media." For the past year and a half (approximately), I've been working with a group that's been investigating the experiences students have in IT-related disciplines, including LIS and IST. This past spring, I interviewed 60 students at five different academic institutions in the U.S., and one thing was mentioned repeatedly: academia is broken! Undergrad and grad students alike said that the focus in academia is on research at the expense of teaching and students. So, while Dede's technologically deterministic statement may be correct - that new media may ultimately alter the structure of higher education - he might also want to take into consideration that there may be other contextual factors (e.g., people, work practice, environment) that go beyond the technology that may also spark changes in academia.
For example, in the piece by Oblinger (2003) on understanding new students, she suggests that these individuals are not passive consumers; rather, this group of new students use their "purchasing power" (p. 42) to evaluate programs and institutions. Oblinger also points out that these individuals have "developed new attitudes and aptitudes as a result of their environment" (p. 44). Therefore, customer service expectations combined with the "information age mindset" may be powerful enough to change not only what we typically envision when we hear the words "higher education" but also the environment itself.
On a side note: Oblinger mentions "generalist faculty" (p. 42) who respond to students' questions when the course instructor is not available. I had to read this section several times to get my head wrapped around this type liaison between faculty and students. It would be fascinating to read about the experiences of these generalist faculty to better understand how this process works and to hear their opinions about the role they play in student learning.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Cutting and Pasting
Speaking of cutting and pasting, Google unveiled a new feature - individuals can now cut-and paste from its collection of online books.
More about this feature is available in the September 20, 2007 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education and Google.
More about this feature is available in the September 20, 2007 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education and Google.
Information Navigation 101
Foster, Andrea (2007, March 9). New programs teach undergraduates how to use the Internet and the online card catalog in search of the best sources. Chronicle of Higher Education, Retrieved June 21, 2007, from
http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i27/27a03801.htm
As a librarian who at one time taught numerous information literacy courses, particularly to individuals who were in the 18-22 age range, I could relate to many of the points raised in this article. In the mid- to late 1990s, I worked in an academic library where the computer terminals were moving from being word processors to information resources. The internet was new to everyone, and the librarians were desperately trying to keep one step ahead of the students. Many professors (and some of the librarians) were not so enamored with these new resources, and concerns about plagiarism, quality of information, etc. was a major concern. How quickly they forgot about their students who photocopied articles and literally cut-and-pasted materials into their papers.
The article mentions that one librarian asks professors to attend the information sessions. I couldn't agree more with this statement. Even when the professors do attend the session, though, there are misunderstandings and confusion. For example, I worked with a marketing professor to teach her class how to access full-text articles via the library's databases (e.g., EBSCO). Even though she had participated in several of my sessions, she would often tell her students that the articles were available through Yahoo! (Her students were frustrated that they could never find the materials they needed for class through this search engine.) There were also those instructors who would bring their class to a session about online resources, only to tell the students they could not use online journals - they had to use the print. Not only were the students drowning in information, but they were drowning in misinformation, as well.
It's been a few years since I've taught an information literacy course; while I'm certain that things have changed, there are probably still those who maintain a skeptical view of online information resources.
http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i27/27a03801.htm
As a librarian who at one time taught numerous information literacy courses, particularly to individuals who were in the 18-22 age range, I could relate to many of the points raised in this article. In the mid- to late 1990s, I worked in an academic library where the computer terminals were moving from being word processors to information resources. The internet was new to everyone, and the librarians were desperately trying to keep one step ahead of the students. Many professors (and some of the librarians) were not so enamored with these new resources, and concerns about plagiarism, quality of information, etc. was a major concern. How quickly they forgot about their students who photocopied articles and literally cut-and-pasted materials into their papers.
The article mentions that one librarian asks professors to attend the information sessions. I couldn't agree more with this statement. Even when the professors do attend the session, though, there are misunderstandings and confusion. For example, I worked with a marketing professor to teach her class how to access full-text articles via the library's databases (e.g., EBSCO). Even though she had participated in several of my sessions, she would often tell her students that the articles were available through Yahoo! (Her students were frustrated that they could never find the materials they needed for class through this search engine.) There were also those instructors who would bring their class to a session about online resources, only to tell the students they could not use online journals - they had to use the print. Not only were the students drowning in information, but they were drowning in misinformation, as well.
It's been a few years since I've taught an information literacy course; while I'm certain that things have changed, there are probably still those who maintain a skeptical view of online information resources.
Work-life Balance
A blurb in today's Chronicle of Higher Education references a list created by Computerworld on ways to balance IT work and real life. While the full list that appears in Computerworld includes 10 tips, the Chronicle piece only lists these top five.
1. Establish and enforce your own priorities. Sometimes that may mean saying no to overtime and promotions.
1. Establish and enforce your own priorities. Sometimes that may mean saying no to overtime and promotions.
2. Communicate. Once you set priorities, let your co-workers know about them. Set boundaries so your boss knows when he or she is crossing them.
3. Build a business case for your better life. If you want to telecommute or have flexible hours, show how you can achieve superior job results in that situation.
4. Take advantage of employee programs. If your college offers job-sharing or on-site child care, find out about those options and use them.
5. Seek out a mentor. Find someone in your field who seems to balance work and life nicely. Ask his or her advice about how you can do the same. Maybe even copy what your mentor does.
Easier said than done...
E-Portfolio Questions
David Emmett, (2003, November). E-Portfolios at QUT: Providing the potential for competitive advantage and a motivating learner-centred environment. Proceedings of the OLT 2003 Excellence: Making the Connections Conference , Australia
Paul Treuer & Jill Jenson. (2003, June). Electronic Portfolios Need Standards to Thrive, Educause Quarterly, Volume 26, Number 2. http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0324.pdf
While I thought the two articles about e-portfolios made some good points to support the adoption of e-portfolios, they raised a lot of questions for me.
Starting with the piece by Emmett, he states that "interaction will best occur when the learning tasks are designed on constructivist principles." However, in his article about the neomillennials, Dede (2005) indicates that situated learning is the future, particularly in virtual educational environments. So, who is right? Is a constructivist approach more conducive to learning or is the situated learning model? Or, does it matter?
Emmett goes on to say that "the main issue is that relatively few teachers have ever been asked to reflect." How are students supposed to learn how to be reflective thinkers if their teachers do not know how to be reflective? Is this just expected to be an innate quality, and thus, it isn't necessary to teach someone how to do it?
Moving to the article by Treuer and Jenson, they provide several different definitions of e-portfolios, which serves to frame their argument that standards are needed in this area. While I agree that the ability to easily store and retrieve your educational information is appealing, the outline for standardization that Treuer and Jenson present seems too simplistic. What about students who transfer after one semester at an institution? Will they access the information through that institution, or will they have to move it do another institution or employer? Will all institutions (including those in non-U.S. locations) and employers have to use the same e-portfolio system, and how will the selection of that system be made? If the information has to be moved, how will privacy issues be handled? Institutions are having enough problems these days with the release of private information into unintended spaces. The e-portfolio concept sounds like a even larger and more daunting task that merely keeping student and faculty records secure and private.
Paul Treuer & Jill Jenson. (2003, June). Electronic Portfolios Need Standards to Thrive, Educause Quarterly, Volume 26, Number 2. http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0324.pdf
While I thought the two articles about e-portfolios made some good points to support the adoption of e-portfolios, they raised a lot of questions for me.
Starting with the piece by Emmett, he states that "interaction will best occur when the learning tasks are designed on constructivist principles." However, in his article about the neomillennials, Dede (2005) indicates that situated learning is the future, particularly in virtual educational environments. So, who is right? Is a constructivist approach more conducive to learning or is the situated learning model? Or, does it matter?
Emmett goes on to say that "the main issue is that relatively few teachers have ever been asked to reflect." How are students supposed to learn how to be reflective thinkers if their teachers do not know how to be reflective? Is this just expected to be an innate quality, and thus, it isn't necessary to teach someone how to do it?
Moving to the article by Treuer and Jenson, they provide several different definitions of e-portfolios, which serves to frame their argument that standards are needed in this area. While I agree that the ability to easily store and retrieve your educational information is appealing, the outline for standardization that Treuer and Jenson present seems too simplistic. What about students who transfer after one semester at an institution? Will they access the information through that institution, or will they have to move it do another institution or employer? Will all institutions (including those in non-U.S. locations) and employers have to use the same e-portfolio system, and how will the selection of that system be made? If the information has to be moved, how will privacy issues be handled? Institutions are having enough problems these days with the release of private information into unintended spaces. The e-portfolio concept sounds like a even larger and more daunting task that merely keeping student and faculty records secure and private.
Pew and the Content Creators
Lenhart, Amanda, & Madden, Mary (2005). Teens content creators and consumers. Washington , DC
This is yet another report by the folks at Pew that includes a plethora of facts. However, this time, the facts are related to online teens, the media materials they use, and the content they create on the internet. According to the authors, Content Creators are defined as "online teens who have created or worked on a blog or webpage, shared original creative content, or remixed content they found online into a new creation" (p. 1). Dede (2005) calls this process of remixing content "Napsterism." The authors (Tapscott and Williams) of the book, Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything, also refer to these content creators, and view them as prosumer "N-geners"(p. 52). While Tapscott and Williams cite the number of teens who can be classified in this category, they also recognize that the content creators are not "content to be passive consumers"; instead, these individuals "increasingly satisfy their desire for choice, convenience, customization, and control by designing, producing, and distributing products themselves" (p. 52). Tapscott and Williams conclude that in order to benefit from the content creators, businesses will have to be reconfigured.
Another "fact" that stood out in the Pew report was related to the percentage of youth who download music and videos. According to the Pew report, "teen boys of all ages are more likely than teen girls to report music downloading" (p. 11). The latest ECAR study (2007) of undergraduates reached similar conclusion.What's interesting is that the research presented in a book by Miller and Slater (2001) titled, The Internet: An Ethnographic Approach mentions that teens in Trinidad avidly download music from the internet - it's not just a U.S. phenomena.
The section of the Pew report that outlined the results about legal and illegal music downloads was also of interest. In the report, the authors state that "75% agree with the statement that, 'Music downloading and file-sharing is so easy to do, it's unrealistic to expect people not to do it" (p. 13). This point was reiterated by Tapscott and Williams who talked to teens who were "high on music, low on cash, and convinced that 'information wants to be free'" (p. 57).
This is yet another report by the folks at Pew that includes a plethora of facts. However, this time, the facts are related to online teens, the media materials they use, and the content they create on the internet. According to the authors, Content Creators are defined as "online teens who have created or worked on a blog or webpage, shared original creative content, or remixed content they found online into a new creation" (p. 1). Dede (2005) calls this process of remixing content "Napsterism." The authors (Tapscott and Williams) of the book, Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything, also refer to these content creators, and view them as prosumer "N-geners"(p. 52). While Tapscott and Williams cite the number of teens who can be classified in this category, they also recognize that the content creators are not "content to be passive consumers"; instead, these individuals "increasingly satisfy their desire for choice, convenience, customization, and control by designing, producing, and distributing products themselves" (p. 52). Tapscott and Williams conclude that in order to benefit from the content creators, businesses will have to be reconfigured.
Another "fact" that stood out in the Pew report was related to the percentage of youth who download music and videos. According to the Pew report, "teen boys of all ages are more likely than teen girls to report music downloading" (p. 11). The latest ECAR study (2007) of undergraduates reached similar conclusion.What's interesting is that the research presented in a book by Miller and Slater (2001) titled, The Internet: An Ethnographic Approach mentions that teens in Trinidad avidly download music from the internet - it's not just a U.S. phenomena.
The section of the Pew report that outlined the results about legal and illegal music downloads was also of interest. In the report, the authors state that "75% agree with the statement that, 'Music downloading and file-sharing is so easy to do, it's unrealistic to expect people not to do it" (p. 13). This point was reiterated by Tapscott and Williams who talked to teens who were "high on music, low on cash, and convinced that 'information wants to be free'" (p. 57).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)