Godness gracious: the internet changed my brain!

There have recently been some excellent articles about an issue that is fundamental to how schools think about the impact of technology on learning. On one side are the pessimists who see the changes being brought about by new technologies as a threat to the way we should learn and engage with information and ideas. On the other hand there are the optimists who believe that we adapt to make the appropriate use of new technogy and ways of doing things.

Nicholas Carr, in Is the internet making us dumber? in the Wall Street Journal writes about evidence that multi-tasking and the sheer distracting nature of the internet interferes with deep and sustained thinking. He says that people are losing the capacity they used to have to read a sustained argument and follow through complex ideas in an orderly manner. He writes:

"What we seem to be sacrificing in all our surfing and searching is our capacity to engage in the quieter, attentive modes of thought that underpin contemplation, reflection and introspection. The Web never encourages us to slow down. It keeps us in a state of perpetual mental locomotion"

Carr quotes research that suggests that our brains and being modified to adapt to this new dominant form of communication, and we are diminished by the process, and becoming more shallow in our thinking. It is a pretty frightening prospect: technology makes people dumb!

On the other hand, Clay Shirky, also in WSJ asks, Does the internet making you smarter? He takes a closer look at history and points out that we have been here before. The invention of movable type printing famously had a major impact on the refomation, breaking the control of access to scripture away from the established church. And, as Shirky says,

"Vulgar versions of the Bible and distracting secular writings fueled religious unrest and civic confusion, leading to claims that the printing press, if not controlled, would lead to chaos and the dismemberment of European intellectual life."

And it did, and we generally now think of this as a good thing. No doubt Nicholas Carr's of the day were filled with foreboding. Shirkey goes on to say,

"Novels, newspapers, scientific journals, the separation of fiction and non-fiction, all of these innovations were created during the collapse of the scribal system, and all had the effect of increasing, rather than decreasing, the intellectual range and output of society."

We can say this now, but at the time it must have been frightening, with the controlled and well ordered system of distributing and interpreting text being destroyed all of a sudden - over a few decades.

Shirky points out a flaw in the story of the pessimists regarding technology, that they romanticise the past. Carr writes about people in the past ploughing through readings that kept their minds on a sustained argument. Very few people did this. It wasn't ever the experience of most people. He also acknowledges that the path to progress is very crooked. Guttenberg's presses produced erotic novels before scientific journals were invented.

"Reading is an unnatural act; we are no more evolved to read books than we are to use computers. Literate societies become literate by investing extraordinary resources, every year, training children to read. Now it's our turn to figure out what response we need to shape our use of digital tools."

Presumably learning how to read changed our brains. It should be remembered that Socratese complained bitterly about the intoduction of writing to the curriculum in ancient Greece because it would reduce the capacity of young people to memorise, which no doubt it did.

A third player, Steven Pinker in the New York Times in Mind over Mass Media addresses the issue of our brains being changed by new experiences. He says "cognitive neuroscientists roll their eyes at such talk". Every time the brain learns something new it changes, and adapts. He accepts that distraction, for example, as Carr complains, is a problem,

"But distraction is not a new phenomenon. The solution is not to bemoan technology but to develop strategies of self-control, as we do with every other temptation in life."

This is where teachers and common sense come into play. Yes, the internet offers great potential for distraction, so teachers have to work to help students manage it, so they can benefit from its undoubed bounty of information and communication.

The three short articles are much more detailed than my summary. They address a crucial issue for school leaders to be clear about.

ACMA cyber safety one stop shop

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has a comprehensive web site dealing with all levels of cyber safety for children, teachers and parents [click image]

I provides useful material to look at with a view to using with students and parents. It is relatively conservative in its advice, naturally, but provides good material for students to react to and explore. It would be good to give a summary (maybe prepared by students) of what your kids think of their advice.

They are no doubt looking for latest feedback all the time to update the site. I looked a some advice for parents and was prompted to send them a suggestion to improve and update their information.

iPad for schools?

It is early days to decide whether the iPad has a significant role in schools and education in general, but I think it will. It is quite a different type of computer and many will just focus on what the iPad cannot do, not giving due attention to the thing it does better.

I have only been bonding with my iPad for a little over a week and I think its huge advantage is immediacy. It is quite different from a laptop because it is immediately available to use. In schools this is very valuable. In two minutes a student can switch on her iPad, open email, read a message and jump off to a web site. This is pretty important in engaging the attention of 30 students. There is virtually no delay, and the size of the ipad and the touch interface all make it significantly more personal interaction. Even the size on a desk is important. There is room on a desk for the iPad and books. The touch screen is a much better collaborative interface than mouse control.

The most significant limitation of the iPad that I can see is the reliance on the on-screen keyboard. This is fine for web browsing and short text input, for me, but then I am a touch typist. I suspect that two finger typers will find it quite satisfactory. However, for longer input sessions a bluetooth keyboard is an option. A class may well manage with a group of these for students who prefer them.

One thing we can be sure of is that the range of apps available for similar tablet computers will expand very quickly, making an assessment of the value of these computers a continuing feast.