Bewilderment is a strange way to begin this discussion, but
you have to put yourself back into the classroom and suspend all you think you
know about teaching & learning for a few minutes.
Today’s students are more “Tec Savvy” than the previous generation;
at least that’s what I see in print. They have access to more gadgets, gizmos,
and games than any generation in history. They use this technology to
communicate with one another and to learn, however this is where I have issue
with the technology.
The literature seems to imply that if you just give students
hours of multimedia, videos, and games that this is how to “reach” today’s
learners. Want them to be successful, just give them what they want, i.e.,
multimedia rich content and learning will take place. Really? I disagree and
can’t say this strongly enough! To me this just is a modern day version of the
“funnel” theory, i.e., just pour the content in and magically learning will
occur. Do you see the irony here? Now we pour in multimedia rather than words
from a lecture, i.e., unless the lecture is prerecorded in which case we just
“pour in” the prerecorded multimedia lecture.
To be successful a learner, whether the 2012 or the 1912
variety, learn by doing; yeah I said it. They need to get their hands dirty to
learn. Whether they are doing longhand arithmetic or using a calculator to
solve an equation, they need to do, not watch. They need to test a hypothesis
as they move up the learning hierarchy as they learn how to internalize the
material. I may be wrong here, but for me the goal of education is to teach
learners to think and that happens by experimenting with and testing theories,
assumptions, researching facts, and comparing ideas.
Am I ruling out the idea of online learning? Absolutely not!
Learning takes place though the exchange of ideas and discussion boards satisfy
this condition. So do blogs, journals, and wikis, as long as they can be read,
commented on, ideas shared, tested, formed, and reformed. Can a short video
clip, e.g., the bridge collapse in Seattle that demonstrates resonance, can be
used to stimulate discussion, but that discussion has to be active and
facilitated. The facilitator, i.e., the
content system expert, can manage the discussion.
So I’m back to what I stated in a previous post, a good
teacher’s a good teacher, and good teachers know how to “manage” a classroom
and keep students engaged and learning. Multimedia and games, while nice to
look at and play, just don’t cut it with me!
I think that multimedia and games have to have a point and be tied into the broader scope of the course by the instructor - they have to contribute to either what is known, or guide thinking in some way, in order to make a contribution. Let me give you two examples, one for each. First, in an online course, the instructor used brief (less than 10 minutes long) narrated Powerpoints as wrap-ups of the previous week and an introduction to upcoming week. It was effective in helping frame the content for the students and helped hightlight the key points in the week's activities. Second, Indiana's Diffusion Simulation Game teaches a learner ways of getting innovations adopted. Neither can exist on their own. They need to be anchored as part of the instruction and be given context by it.
ReplyDeleteI meant to include a link for Indiana's Diffusion Simulation Game - https://www.indiana.edu/~simed/istdemo/. Sorry!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link ... and I agree that "context" is critical.
ReplyDelete