4.4

I actually had read this article last fall for Dr. Danner's Cognitive Development class.  I found it really interesting at that time and was excited to read it again in a new context.  The advantage of re-reading something I have already read is that I had already highlighted many phrases that caught my attention.  I found myself highlighting new phrases this time and was able to focus on different aspects of the article.

The first myth was that learners in the 21st century are "digital natives" as a result of growing up in a world with computers and the internet available pretty much everywhere at any time.  This idea has translated into the myth that learning can happen entirely in a self-directed manner from technology.  I believe Skinner would agree with this since his proposal of teaching machines in the 1980s; however, assuming that students can learn solely from technology requires the assumption that students can manage and navigate technology in an efficient manner.  Kirschner says, "These assumptions are all grounded - at least partly - in the widespread belief that children are highly effective at managing their own interactions with the technological world and should be trusted to be in control of these interactions" (p. 170).  I do not know any parent (including myself) who would turn over control of technology including when to use it, for how long, and to view what content to a child.  It is not necessary a lack of trust, but an understanding that technology opens the door to vast amounts of information that may or may not be appropriate.  Many technology also have embedded in them the habit forming variable interval schedule of behaviorist theory, causing children to lose some self-control in the frequency of their interactions.

The other component to this first myth is the idea of multitasking.  This stems from the idea that modern students are excellent multitaskers.  The evidence can be seen in how often they engage in multitasking, right?  Not exactly.  The evidence and research in how the brain works points out the the human brain is actually incapable of multitasking.  When people appear to be multitasking, the cognitive process is more accurately described as switching quickly between tasks.  I was reminded of James' talk on attention when Kirschner said, "When task switching, first the individual shifts the goal and thus makes a 'decision' to divert attention from one task to another, and then the individual activates a rule so instructions for executing one task are switched off, and those for executing the other are switched on" (p. 172).  As we divide our active attention between tasks, we lose a level of efficiency in learning.  The example of multitasking always used is driving and talking on the phone or more recently texting.  Since it is impossible to multitask, using a phone while driving requires people to switch off the attention on driving or move it into the margins and switch on the act of using the phone.  However, Kirschner also made the distinction that multitasking may be more possible when one action is a habit.  The problem with talking on the phone and driving is that a significant amount of driving is habit.  This is why most people would argue that they are not being unsafe when they use their phone while driving.  However, the problem arises when something unexpected happens and the habit cannot save us.  We simply cannot switch back fast enough frequently to avoid an accident.  Does one task being completely habit mean that true multitasking is possible?  If we are made up entirely of habits (or even 99.99 percent) than what does that mean for multitasking?

For me, the middle section of this article on the myth of learning styles was the least interesting.  I feel like I have known that learning styles are a myth for a long time.  I also have always felt that catering to every learning style was impractical.  What was interesting was the discussion on how people's preferred learning style may not actually be their best or most efficient.  It is because I believe learning styles are a myth and that schools cannot cater to every learning style that I struggle with some people I have known who choose to homeschool their children to better cater to their children's learning styles.  Adult life does not always cater to a specific learning style.  While I feel that I learn better when I have something in writing, I am going to be given verbal instructions.  Even though I know that I have to do something myself before I have really learned it, that will not always be possible or provided for me.  As Kirschner said, "Teach them to compensate for their counterproductive style" (p. 175).  Instead of trying to cater learning to the individual, we should be helping the individual learn to access knowledge presented in many different ways.

The third myth addresses learners as self-educators.  Kirschner discussed how it is assumed that teachers are somewhat unnecessary at this point in time because everything they will teach is available on the internet.  As I reread this section of the article, I was reminded of a wonderful article in The Federalist I read recently called "The Death of Expertise."  You can read it for yourself here.  Professionals across fields are facing consumers who believe they know better.  I have seen parents literally bring Wikipedia articles to meetings at school so they can teach us about Autism.  How do we as professionals address this issue?  What do we say when our expertise is being questioned?  Kirschner says, "Western society has changed.  We have moved away from a society in which authority is accepted and even appreciated into one where it is questioned and where we feel that we are best at determining what we do and how we should do it; we are a society of knowledgeable and articulate consumers of goods and services" (p. 177).  However, as Kirschner points out, the problem arises when their is so much information available that we are left to sift through it and determine what is good and what is bad.  I can promise that there is a lot of bad information available on the internet.  How are we preparing students to navigate the vast world of information? 

This article is filled with thoughts that make me nod my head and say, "yeah."  I was so glad I was given an excuse to read it again with fresh eyes.  Since we cannot ignore prior knowledge I knew I would take away some different things this time as I read in the context of learning instead of cognitive development.