If so, head over to the Washington Post’s Answer Sheet, where Dan Willingham takes up the increasingly common observation that the brains of “digital natives” are somehow wired differently than the brains of folks who didn’t grow up online. ”Are the very brains of our students being changed by new technologies?” Dan asks. ”And if so, should teachers contemplate new methods of instruction to teach these changed brains?” Caveats abound, but the short answer is probably not. Willingham cites a recent op-ed by fellow cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, who downplays the alarming sounding idea that ”experience changes the brain.”
Cognitive neuroscientists roll their eyes at such talk. Yes, every time we learn a fact or skill the wiring of the brain changes; it’s not as if the information is stored in the pancreas. But the existence of neural plasticity does not mean the brain is a blob of clay pounded into shape by experience.
“I think Pinker is right,” says Willingham. “The cognitive system is flexible and adaptive, sure, but it’s not that adaptive.”
OK, fine. But teachers often complain that surface engagement (think Twitter and Facebook) with information is driving a loss of ability to read deeply. Right? ”If students really do more skimming and less reflecting than they used to, they might be a bit better at skimming, a bit worse at reflective thought, and likely more biased (absent other instructions) to read at the surface of a text rather than to reflect on it,” Willingham writes, but that doesn’t mean “a profound change in teaching” is called for.
Sorry, Dan, I was just checking my email….Surely technology makes students more easily distractable, right?
We’ve always been distractable, but now we have many more distractions available. And the distractions are more costly. Twenty years ago, a kid would daydream for a moment, and then return to his math homework. Today, he watches YouTube videos and doesn’t get back to his homework for 15 minutes. And, of course, the core feature of some new technologies—connectivity—often means interruption. What you’re working on may be important, but it’s hard to resist checking your email when it pings.
What kids will need, Willingham concludes, is ”education in the effective use of new technologies, which ought to happen in school and at home.”
Excellent article. I agree with Dr. Willingham that there’s a difference between a person’s motivation to do something (such as thoughtful linear reading) and the actual ability to do so. My experience has been that access to high-speed internet has had negative effects on the former, at least for me personally. I have much less patience than I used to (though some of that is likely due to life circumstances since I’m now mom to 3 small kids & therefore have less free time).
Comment by Crimson Wife — July 6, 2010 @ 11:26 am
Dan’s (and, oddly enough, PInker’s) argument could be very useful to advocates of technology in schools. One of the best reasons for using technology in schools: We must teach students to use it for good rather than evil. We must help them see technology as “aids to reflection, research and reason”–not merely as diversions.
Comment by Claus — July 6, 2010 @ 2:43 pm
The distractions that students face today surely hinder their learning. If we consider that students can retain 5-9 items in their short-term memory for about 20 seconds (Orey, 2001) and that they need to relate those items to information already in long-term memory so they can retrieve it later, constant interruptions definitely contribute to poor learning. Parents need to monitor these interruptions and make sure that students have a place to learn at home without distractions.
In the classroom, however, by using the technology that students love, teachers can make learning more meaningful and relate it to their students’ lives. In this setting, it is the teacher’s responsibility to make sure that the students are using the technology to learn and not as a distraction.
Orey, M. (2001). Information Processing. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Information_processing
Comment by Sue — July 7, 2010 @ 9:34 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Evelin Peña and Evelin Peña, EnglishCafe.com. EnglishCafe.com said: This is your brain and this is your brain on Google… Any questions? http://ow.ly/2bsUz [...]
Pingback by Tweets that mention This is Your Brain on Google…Any Questions? « The Core Knowledge Blog, The Core Knowledge Blog -- Topsy.com — July 15, 2010 @ 12:18 pm