FYI Blog: The Shift to Digital Learning: 10 Benefits

[MarkT]

<http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/on_innovation/2015/11/the_shift_to_digital_learning_10_benefits.html?cmp=eml-enl-eu-news2-RM>

 

What do you think?

 

Obviously this blogger is a big proponent.

[MomsintheGarden]

Thanks for this!

 

[Azalea]

Thanks for posting.

[Reefgazer]

In theory, digital learning should be a plus, for all the reasons the author mentions. But in practice, I've not found it to be so and I continue to be of the opinion that books/writing/paper and face to face contact are a superior method for teaching most topics. I say this as a person who taught online classes for nearly ten years at our local community college - I found the courses to be not at all personalized (in fact, quite the opposite, because my college wanted a standardized curriculum). Opportunity for learning may be expanded, but actual learning is diminished. Despite our shift to digital learning, basic competency of college students has diminished greatly over the years. I think face time and engagement with actual humans is what motivates students most. In fact, I'm going out on a limb and will say I think digital learning is one of the most damaging trends in education I have seen in a long time. I will agree that timely updates in information are a plus to digital learning.

[MerryAtHope]

In theory, digital learning should be a plus, for all the reasons the author mentions. But in practice, I've not found it to be so and I continue to be of the opinion that books/writing/paper and face to face contact are a superior method for teaching most topics. I say this as a person who taught online classes for nearly ten years at our local community college - I found the courses to be not at all personalized (in fact, quite the opposite, because my college wanted a standardized curriculum). Opportunity for learning may be expanded, but actual learning is diminished. Despite our shift to digital learning, basic competency of college students has diminished greatly over the years. I think face time and engagement with actual humans is what motivates students most. In fact, I'm going out on a limb and will say I think digital learning is one of the most damaging trends in education I have seen in a long time. I will agree that timely updates in information are a plus to digital learning.

 

WSS. 

[Farrar]

Yeah. I'm no Luddite. We all like technology and use it, including for education sometimes. However, every time that people try to push it to go too far too fast, it's usually a waste of time and resources. Even when I think the technology should be equal or better, the tech breaks, it has to be renewed, it costs money. Old textbooks are cheaper and last longer and are often just as good if not better, keeping notes pencil and paper is better for your brain, face to face checks of understanding is often better than a computer algorithm... most tech in education just isn't accomplishing what this article claims as cheaply or efficiently as old fashioned methods.

[Farrar]

I also just looked at the Brock vs. digital microscope thread up right now and that's a perfect example of all the problems with tech in education.

 

The Brock is a result of the design movement - it's old technology that has been made better by design (in the case of the Brock, by the prism instead of the mirror and by the durable construction). One of those in a classroom will likely last for many years. It will never not do what it's supposed to do. I'm sure it can be broken, but it would take real mistreatment. It's extremely easy to use and takes very little teaching.

 

By contrast, a digital microscope can be fun and presents a lot of possibilities, like the ability to put the image on a big screen or smart board and the ability to save the images and share them. Some of them are pretty cheap too - cheaper than the Brock. Some of the ones geared toward kids are easy, but it will likely expire even with careful use within a couple of years unless it's really expensive and made for more serious use. And if it's really expensive, then it will be outmoded technology in a few years anyway and will have to be replaced because it won't want to interface with your newer devices. It has to plug in so it needs to be charged or have it's batteries replaced routinely. It has to plug into other things to view the images and sometimes those things will need special software or apps you have to install to make them work. There are a lot of places where interfacing can make things go wrong. If you put it on the shelf for a few months, it's likely to be hard to get out and use again.

 

I think a lot of the old stuff versus tech is similar. The tech promises some new possibilities but it either can't deliver, is more expensive, doesn't last, is more difficult to use and implement, or all of those things.

 

And it's not that we shouldn't be improving the old stuff - again, in this example, the Brock is a totally improved student tool. I think they've only been around for a decade or two at most. It's that the payoff isn't always worth it.

[Hunter]

I have been forced to switch to more digital than I think is optimal.

 

 

[Tsuga]

In theory, digital learning should be a plus, for all the reasons the author mentions. But in practice, I've not found it to be so and I continue to be of the opinion that books/writing/paper and face to face contact are a superior method for teaching most topics. I say this as a person who taught online classes for nearly ten years at our local community college - I found the courses to be not at all personalized (in fact, quite the opposite, because my college wanted a standardized curriculum). Opportunity for learning may be expanded, but actual learning is diminished. Despite our shift to digital learning, basic competency of college students has diminished greatly over the years. I think face time and engagement with actual humans is what motivates students most. In fact, I'm going out on a limb and will say I think digital learning is one of the most damaging trends in education I have seen in a long time. I will agree that timely updates in information are a plus to digital learning.

I agree completely. I see this in our school and in my own kids.

[kiwik]

I think digital learning programmes implemented well would require at least as much input as the non digital. Often they are used while the teacher does something else though and the kids don't know how to learn from them or start playing games. And technology is always failing which uses time and money. I am not against it completely just saying that first and foremost whatever resources are used the teacher needs to be willing and able to teach.

[Haiku]

Every study I have ever read on the subject says that attention and retention are poorer with digital materials as opposed to paper materials. 

[MerryAtHope]

Every study I have ever read on the subject says that attention and retention are poorer with digital materials as opposed to paper materials. 

 

I'd actually love some references on this if you can point me to some! I've always thought this but haven't read up on it. 

[albeto.]

My kids are older now, and we didn't have things like iPads or smart phones when they were starting school, but we did have a computer. We learned simple spelling rules by playing "Where in the World is Carmen Santiago?" Curious George helped with math, and my kids learned to type playing games with a SpongeBob typing program. As they got older and became more computer savvy, they became familiar with the internet and all the things offered. Eventually they made connections with people all around the world, broadening horizons in ways I or the local school could simply never have given them. They found allies in friends hundreds and thousands of miles away, and became allies to others who had to hide who they were for fear of retribution (ie, LGBTQ). They learned how to search answers to questions from calculus to why some people think John Lennon is not a good role model. These are things I couldn't have helped them with, and things they likely would not have been introduced to at the local school. They learned because they were motivated to learn, and with a computer, the information was literally at their fingertips. I can't see how number 5 (Assessment for learning), 7 ( Quality learning products), 8 (Sharing economy), or 10 (Next-gen learning for educators) apply to us, as they seem to apply to conventional school infrastructure, but overall, I think digital learning has been a great benefit to my kids, and their generation. 

[Bluegoat]

I think the blog is actually an advertisement.

 

My sense is that most of the people who really get into this idea that digital learning will revolutionize things have some confusion between access to information and real learning.  In my experience, digital media are best at facilitating learning when they are most closely copying what happens in other learning situations, or when they are facilitating it. So - discussion forums where there is real discussion or electronic journals, for example. 

 

And, on the other hand, they set up some barriers - particularly the tendency to become ghettoized in one's thinking.

 

One of the universities very local to me has tried to move to a very technology driven model - having all classes and notes and lectures available online, every student interacting through laptops provided by the university, a lot of remote classes, and so on.  I can't say that it seems to have been very successful - it's very expensive, and it doesn't work well with many of the classes - it seems to be best with very technical things that are just done a particular way, but not that hands on.  It doesn't work well with classes where the lecture will be different depending on the interaction between the students and the teachers, or where you need to work alongside someone at a practical task, or where they is real collaborative work going on or people are discovering new things.  There are ways to make that sort of thing work digitally if required, but it just isn't the same as other types of interactions.

 

 

[Farrar]

I'd actually love some references on this if you can point me to some! I've always thought this but haven't read up on it. 

 

This is the first one that came to my mind, about that taking notes by hand vs. computer study that was buzzed about a year or so ago:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-learning-secret-don-t-take-notes-with-a-laptop/

[Farrar]

My kids are older now, and we didn't have things like iPads or smart phones when they were starting school, but we did have a computer. We learned simple spelling rules by playing "Where in the World is Carmen Santiago?" Curious George helped with math, and my kids learned to type playing games with a SpongeBob typing program. As they got older and became more computer savvy, they became familiar with the internet and all the things offered. Eventually they made connections with people all around the world, broadening horizons in ways I or the local school could simply never have given them. They found allies in friends hundreds and thousands of miles away, and became allies to others who had to hide who they were for fear of retribution (ie, LGBTQ). They learned how to search answers to questions from calculus to why some people think John Lennon is not a good role model. These are things I couldn't have helped them with, and things they likely would not have been introduced to at the local school. They learned because they were motivated to learn, and with a computer, the information was literally at their fingertips. I can't see how number 5 (Assessment for learning), 7 ( Quality learning products), 8 (Sharing economy), or 10 (Next-gen learning for educators) apply to us, as they seem to apply to conventional school infrastructure, but overall, I think digital learning has been a great benefit to my kids, and their generation. 

 

I do think all those things are good. We use technology in a lot of ways and I'm definitely grateful for it. I guess I just think there's a need for caution when investing a ton of money in a traditional school infrastructure. My experiences with that on the teaching end have been mostly pretty negative. A school system I worked in had invested a ton of money in this "tv-ator" technology - every teacher was supposed to have a laptop and the laptops were supposed to hook into TV's in every classroom so you could use it a bit like a smart board (this was awhile back, obviously). Well, I got there a mere two years into the technology and already there were closets full of busted teacher laptops, half the cords to connect the TV screens weren't there, the new classrooms didn't have TV's, the school refused to install the software on my personal laptop after they wouldn't give me one. Basically, they had invested many, many thousands of dollars and for what? A technology that sounded really cool but didn't pay off very well and went out of date before they could even iron out the kinks.

 

Of course, that was one of many waves of technology in the classroom over the years. Each time a new wave comes, the proponents say this time it's different! But so far that hasn't really been true. It takes a dedicated person to keep tech running in a classroom. A few teachers have the motivation and the skill set to do it. Most don't and most schools don't have enough support people helping them. Meanwhile these same classes that are swimming in outmoded tech can't afford to buy actual textbooks.

 

Some technology is definitely worth it. And I love the role of tech in my kids' lives. I worry especially about how you bring those benefits to lower income kids in schools when they don't have them at home. But I'm sure the gung ho, technology will solve it attitude is a problem. One thing I've come to believe is that school systems shouldn't be the pioneers in technology. Let the private schools and the colleges do the testing. It's okay if they're not cutting edge. I think it's better to have the money for good teachers and solid skill building than to invest boatloads into a race that you're bound to lose.

[albeto.]

I do think all those things are good. We use technology in a lot of ways and I'm definitely grateful for it. I guess I just think there's a need for caution when investing a ton of money in a traditional school infrastructure. My experiences with that on the teaching end have been mostly pretty negative. A school system I worked in had invested a ton of money in this "tv-ator" technology - every teacher was supposed to have a laptop and the laptops were supposed to hook into TV's in every classroom so you could use it a bit like a smart board (this was awhile back, obviously). Well, I got there a mere two years into the technology and already there were closets full of busted teacher laptops, half the cords to connect the TV screens weren't there, the new classrooms didn't have TV's, the school refused to install the software on my personal laptop after they wouldn't give me one. Basically, they had invested many, many thousands of dollars and for what? A technology that sounded really cool but didn't pay off very well and went out of date before they could even iron out the kinks.

 

Of course, that was one of many waves of technology in the classroom over the years. Each time a new wave comes, the proponents say this time it's different! But so far that hasn't really been true. It takes a dedicated person to keep tech running in a classroom. A few teachers have the motivation and the skill set to do it. Most don't and most schools don't have enough support people helping them. Meanwhile these same classes that are swimming in outmoded tech can't afford to buy actual textbooks.

 

Some technology is definitely worth it. And I love the role of tech in my kids' lives. I worry especially about how you bring those benefits to lower income kids in schools when they don't have them at home. But I'm sure the gung ho, technology will solve it attitude is a problem. One thing I've come to believe is that school systems shouldn't be the pioneers in technology. Let the private schools and the colleges do the testing. It's okay if they're not cutting edge. I think it's better to have the money for good teachers and solid skill building than to invest boatloads into a race that you're bound to lose.

 

Would it be fair to say the problem you identify isn't the use of technology, but in discerning how to best incorporate available technology into the education model? Technology itself is a neutral thing, and while it presents the opportunity to waste time and money, it also provides the opportunity to do incredible things that cannot be done in any other way (ie, talking to astronauts at the International Space Station, offering virtual schools for students who cannot attend otherwise). So it sounds to me like the problem isn't incorporating digital technology, the problem is knowing how to do it in an effective, productive, practical way.

 

This sounds more like an economic and political issue than an issue regarding technology used for education. I don't disagree with you, but these are red herrings to the idea that technology presents certain benefits to education. These problems you identify exist, no doubt, and I agree with you that educational institutions shouldn't be experimenting with this. 

[Farrar]

Would it be fair to say the problem you identify isn't the use of technology, but in discerning how to best incorporate available technology into the education model? Technology itself is a neutral thing, and while it presents the opportunity to waste time and money, it also provides the opportunity to do incredible things that cannot be done in any other way (ie, talking to astronauts at the International Space Station, offering virtual schools for students who cannot attend otherwise). So it sounds to me like the problem isn't incorporating digital technology, the problem is knowing how to do it in an effective, productive, practical way.

 

This sounds more like an economic and political issue than an issue regarding technology used for education. I don't disagree with you, but these are red herrings to the idea that technology presents certain benefits to education. These problems you identify exist, no doubt, and I agree with you that educational institutions shouldn't be experimenting with this. 

 

Yes, I would mostly agree. The issue is not primarily learning and technology per se - it's the implementation, cost, etc.

 

However, I also think some of the promises of technology are inherently a waste of time and effort. The old ways are better - there are studies showing that taking notes by hand leads to retaining more information, that reading on paper has a similar effect. And many times the technology costs more and takes more fuss but adds very little, such as in the case of using flash cards on a tablet or something along those lines. Other times technology offers better ways to learn and do things like when it can connect people from all over the world or when there's an innovative way that technology is used, such as with a program like Dragonbox for learning algebra.

 

I think a lot of the time articles like this one are just so blindly pro-tech that they don't think about the downsides of implementation or the pros and cons of the individual technologies. 

[Bluegoat]

The money thing is something to think about.  Research on students using computers in elementary school hasn't really shown any benefit for students.  And yet schools pay a lot for computer rooms while they don't have music programs.

 

We had a weird one here recently.  One of the (mostly rural) school boards that is so short of money that it is closing schools has started installing wifi on the school busses.  They say it keeps the students quiet on the long bus rides they have to take because their local schools have been shut down. 

[regentrude]

I'd actually love some references on this if you can point me to some! I've always thought this but haven't read up on it. 

 

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/22/0956797614524581.abstract

The pen is mightier than the keyboard

 

Google the phrase, it brings up many articles with summaries of the original article

 

[MerryAtHope]

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/22/0956797614524581.abstract

The pen is mightier than the keyboard

 

Google the phrase, it brings up many articles with summaries of the original article

 

 

Good thought. I actually was thinking more about the reading angle than the writing angle, but this is helpful too. Thanks!

[Farrar]

Good thought. I actually was thinking more about the reading angle than the writing angle, but this is helpful too. Thanks!

 

This article summarizes some of the studies about reading on a screen:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reading-paper-screens/

[G5052]

In theory, digital learning should be a plus, for all the reasons the author mentions. But in practice, I've not found it to be so and I continue to be of the opinion that books/writing/paper and face to face contact are a superior method for teaching most topics. I say this as a person who taught online classes for nearly ten years at our local community college - I found the courses to be not at all personalized (in fact, quite the opposite, because my college wanted a standardized curriculum). Opportunity for learning may be expanded, but actual learning is diminished. Despite our shift to digital learning, basic competency of college students has diminished greatly over the years. I think face time and engagement with actual humans is what motivates students most. In fact, I'm going out on a limb and will say I think digital learning is one of the most damaging trends in education I have seen in a long time. I will agree that timely updates in information are a plus to digital learning.

 

As another who has been involved with online education for about a decade, I agree.

 

For a segment of the population, it is a wonderful thing. If you're a disciplined, determined learner who can handle the media and the method, it's great. It can give you access to something you might not be able to manage otherwise. Among my current online college sections, I have about a dozen students who are like this.

 

But the rest. I feel bad for them because it truly can be discouraging and expensive. I've students email me really sad stories about why this media isn't working for them.

 

I talked about this not long ago on the college board. The online college class I'm teaching has solid material with video demonstrations, handouts, and such that are continuously updated. But the pace is tough unless you're really on game the entire way because we teach this in an 8-week format so they can take advantage of free software downloads. This college has checkpoints where I drop them if they haven't completed certain assignments.

 

One section went from twelve and is down to three. One is really on track and moving ahead, one is struggling but is keeping up, and the last one has been struggling with family issues and may or may not finish it up. The last checkpoint has passed and it ends in a little over a week.

 

The second section went from 36 and is down to 22 with one more checkpoint. It ends in mid-December. They have a large project due next week, and I'm figuring that I'll be dropping about half of them at the next checkpoint because they're not going to finish that project.

 

I believe in digital learning, but it's not the answer it's made out to be. Many students still do best with a live teacher in a classroom. It's much more motivating and interactive.

 

I've discussed this a lot with my oldest because he took dual enrollment in high school that was face-to-face, hybrid (limited face-to-face), and online. He also took live online classes with a teacher that was with them 1-2 times a week, which would be considered a hybrid.

 

His preference is the hybrid environment. He currently has two hybrid college classes and three face-to-face. He feels like the hybrid is ideal because he feels like the professors are really efficient that way, and he's on campus only once a week for that class. He doesn't want to do online unless there are no other options. Next semester he'll have three hybrids, one face-to-face, and one online.

 

So I appreciate the optimism, but it's not for everyone. I've been teaching at the community college level since 1998, and I would agree that the quality of students is going down too.