TQ3 I'm Sold on Neuroscience-Based Education, But Not From Prensky's Perspective

After reading article titled, Do They Really Think Differently (Prensky, 2001), I couldn’t help but to reflect back on TIME magazine’s cover story (March 27,2006) that focused on children and technology, which asked the question, “are kids too wired for their own good?” Given the discussion of the relative importance of the investment of time and effort (persistence) in learning I thought it was interesting when Dr. Jordan Grafman was quoted saying, “that the quality of one’s output and depth of thought deteriorate as one attends to ever more tasks” when speaking about the dangers of multitasking with technology. Obviously this opinion is diametrically opposed to Prensky’s notion that the “digital native brains” of today’s youth have somehow been reorganized for parallel processing, which doesn’t correlate to the reality of the cognitive capacity of the sensory register, short term and long term memory systems. Given the focused time and effort required for mastery learning, achieving it today may be harder now than ever. The student composing an essay for an English class on his or her computer may also have iTunes opened listening to AC/DC while IMing several friends and checking email between writing sentences. Professor Claudia Koonz, professor of history at Duke University, encourages her students to “disconnect” from technology. She thinks students today have an aversion for complexity that is directly related to multitasking with technology. “It’s as if they have too many windows open on their hard drive,” she says. “In order to have a taste for sifting through different layers of truth, you have to stay with a topic and pursue it deeply, rather than go across the surface with your toolbar.”

I find it interesting that Presnsky relies on a quote from Elizabeth Lorch (Amherst) who is quoting Malcolm Gladwell (The Tipping Point, 2000) as his proof that the “digital native brains” of children watch TV in bursts (strategic selective attention) and that distractions don’t negatively impact retention and recall. I would suggest that Prensky should read Barbara Flagg’s original research, Formative Evaluation of Sesame Street Using Eye Movement Photography (1977), before relying on the interpretation of others to make a claim that the attention spans of children doesn’t matter. Flagg’s research was designed to help early TV producers identify how to manipulate instructional design variables to optimize attention. Using a whisper-down-the-lane claim that Flagg’s formative analysis of a small study population of 21 four and five year olds in 1977 somehow proves Prensky’s point severely impacts his credibility.

Like Prensky, I identify myself as a neuroscience based educator, but unlike Prensky, I am a bit more pragmatic about the relative value of technology based upon the desired learning outcome. In fact, like all tools, technology can be used for good or evil. Unfortunately, Prensky’s over the top bias for technology undermines his credibility when he advocates that “linear thought processes that dominate educational systems now can actually retard learning for brains developed through game and web-surfing processes on the computer.” This is idiotic. I believe exactly the opposite - hypertexted minds that leap from one superficial data point to the next can retard brains that never learn that the way to mastery at anything is narrowly focused, deliberate, increasingly difficult, repetitive practice, undertaken over a long period of time, with informative feedback that leads to incremental correction of errors and continuous improvement (Ericsson et al, The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, and many other sources). I believe that technology should be used wisely and in a very, very targeted way to accelerate knowledge transfer or improvement in skills performance.

The SimCity4 game I played, while mildly entertaining, might teach students that a thriving city requires the appropriate interdependent mix of industry, retail and residential areas supported by the appropriate infrastructure of roads and power, but not much else. This game would probably be satisfying to Prensky, who believes that the “digital native brains” of children require “multitasking, graphics-first, active, connected, and fun” educational content, but to what purpose. Students might gain a conceptual understanding that cities require a complex interdependent balance to stay viable, but the content just isn’t here to provide any real depth of understanding. For example, as mayor my approval rating of 57% is pretty good, and I grew the city population from zero to over 10,000 with an estimated city value of over 12 million dollars, but could now grow the treasury funding from a zero balance once I achieved this level. When I raised taxes to 12% I lost industry, commercial activity and residents, but didn’t add a single dollar to the treasury. When I lowered taxes to 6%, industry, commercial businesses and residents came back, but I didn’t add a single dollar to the treasury even though the graphic image indicates a thriving community. This left me personally frustrated> I imagine this would leave a child both frustrated and convinced that a city’s growth is limited.