Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
not the most important ones. The degree of engagement and participation was felt to
be increased; this was considered particularly important for the less able students”
(p. 230).
A fundamental question in thinking about teaching and learning in the twenty-
first century revolves around the notion of learners as different today, from those
in previous generations, due in part to our media-centric world. Studies (Lenhart,
Madden, Macgill, & Smith, 2007) have shown that students are capable, conscien-
tious, concerned, and optimistic, and as a generation, determined to succeed. Over
90% of the students reported they value school plan to continue their education after
secondary school, use computers and the Internet for school work and research, and
spend more time using the Internet than watching television, and most create content
on the Internet. In Lessig's (2001) terms, the user becomes the producer. Prensky
(2001) stated that today's students do not just use, but rather assume and expect
technology, are always “on,” are skilled multitaskers, and significantly, embrace
communities, collaboration, and social networking. Educators are told that it is
their responsibility to inspire and engage students construct, perform, and become
lifelong learners.
Authors such as Restak (2003) have done extensive investigation regarding how
technology and biology are converging to influence the evolution of the human
brain. He describes how we are now able to study the brain in real time, and even
looks at how learning a new skill changes one's brain. From this comes the notion
of cognition—the psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning
(Merriam Webster, n. p.). He also discusses the ways in which the brain does have
plasticity, but that it is also influenced by all sorts of technology around us; further
he reflects upon the way humans face constant challenges to the ability to focus
attention and how we have become more frenetic, distracted, fragmented, and even
hyperactive. This reality has implications for the young learner who is perhaps less
able to focus and discriminate between what is important and what is extraneous.
It is worth asking, however, if our students are really different in the ways
they learn, remember, and solve problems. We can look to Cognitive Load Theory
(Sweller, 1988) to think about what is required of a learner during knowledge acqui-
sition process. Intrinsic load relates to the inherent difficulty of a task or idea, which
extrinsic load relates to the impact of outside influences, including those imposed
by the learning environment (e.g., interruptions, loud music, or poorly designed
instruction). Kenny (2009) has investigated the notion that learners today are funda-
mentally different from those in the past, based on an abundance of popular treatises
(Prensky, 2001) and anecdotal reports. He suggested that “At the forefront is the
issue of which learner characteristics have changed, if any, and, accordingly, which
evaluation tools are best suited to evaluate them” (p. 45). His strategy has been to
go back to a well validated matching Familiar Figures Test (MFFT). Although it
was developed over 30 years ago, its goal was to measure cognitive tempo on an
impulsive-reflective axis. It may be considered a subgroup of cognitive style that
works to identify differences in individual responses in the face of uncertainty in
which subjects may opt to sacrifice speed for accuracy or vice versa. Two groups of
K-12 students from different eras were investigated to determine if comparing cog-
nitive tempos between subjects who took the original MFFT-20 to those who live
Search WWH ::




Custom Search