Did Oppenheimer Influence Bauerlein’s Dumbest Generation?

My friend and colleague Tim Holt, the Director of Instructional Technology for the El Paso school district, dropped me a note last month about an article in the London Daily Mail asserting technology, specifically violent videogames, causes brain damage (or at least significantly alters brain functions). Tim wraps things up the issue nicely in his post here.

I wrote back saying it sounded alarmist, and reminded me of a new book called The Dumbest Generation by Emory University English professor Mark Bauerlein. The full title is The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don’t Trust Anyone Under 30). Tim went out and scored an interview with Dr. Bauerlein, which he posted on the podcast side of his blog here. Bauerlein says (among other things) that students are inundated with distractions from consoles, computers, and other digital errata.

It seems every so often an author comes out and criticizes technology in the classroom. This draws up a beehive of discussion. I can think of two (somewhat) recent examples. Stanford professor Larry Cuban’s book, Underused and Oversold: Computers in the Classroom is one, and The Flickering Mind: The False Promise of Technology in the Classroom and How Learning Can Be Saved by journalist Todd Oppenheimer.

The big difference between Bauerlein’s efforts and those of Oppenheimer and Cuban is that videogames are part of the mix now. Interestingly, Bauerlein reviewed Oppenheimer’s book back in 2004 here. Hmmm. I read Oppenheimer’s book, and found it to be mostly a documentation of technology failures in public schools, sourced mainly from articles in eSchoolNews. Could it be that Oppenheimer’s negativity influenced Dr. Bauerlein’s current work?

E-Learn 2008 Deadline Approaching

The coordinators of E-Learn 2008 in Las Vegas, Nevada have re-issued a call for papers. Deadline is April 29. Read more here.

Tagged: What I Believe

Tim Holt over at the Intended Consequences blog tagged me a while back with the “This I Believe” theme for educational technology. This is a good exercise, because it’s important for all of us in the education business to sit down and think for a minute as to why we’re doing all the stuff we’re doing. I can’t do as good a job at this as Tim has, but I’ll give it a shot:

- I believe that computers and related technology are not necessary for students to learn in school, but they make certain things easier for both students and teachers (if they know what they’re doing), and often add a higher level of interest and excitement for the students.

- I believe that education at its most basic level is communication; that education cannot take place without communication. In that regard, any technology/device that enhances or propels communication can (and probably will) be appropriated by stakeholders for educational purposes.

- The most intriguing form of educational technology to me is the instructional videogame. I believe that placing learning objectives within a gaming environment can open venues for students, including recalcitrant ones, otherwise unavailable. As such, educational gaming offers a nifty tool for teachers in the encouragement of their students toward attaining certain objectives, including some not easily assessed on standardized exams.

- I believe there is no one “cure-all” or panacea for teachers to get their students to obtain higher test scores. Any company offering such is selling a fake bill of goods. What does lead to higher test scores includes good teaching by the teachers and good studying by the students. To wit: the technology or software or program is not necessarily what causes higher scores directly; rather, it is the teacher and the students using the product that results in higher scores. With that in mind, I firmly believe educational technology can and often does play a significant role in this process, and many products can help teachers and students in attaining those scores.

- Finally, I have learned a bit about educational research in the pursuit of my doctorate. I think the majority of debate regarding research would disappear if those arguing understood the basics of research and its implications. To wit: researchers in the social sciences can never “prove” anything, only add to the body of research supporting one conclusion or another. In that regard, the “soft sciences” are weaker than the “hard sciences,” but the notion behind understanding research precludes accepting any statement without question. This can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the educator. So, anyone who claims research “proves” a component of educational technology is beneficial in some way (or, conversely, detrimental) should be considered suspect. What one should say is, research supports the use of a particular technology (or does not support it). Nothing is ever “proven” in the social sciences.

Site of the Week with TopNetPix

I’m honored that this blog has been chosen by the editors at TopNetPix as one of their blogs of the week on their Facebook app and website.

Educational Games Research was selected as a
Blog of the Week
January 2nd, 2008

“(Virtual) Classroom” Picked Up By ICFAI University Press

As I’ve said on previous occasions, educational gaming crosses over into other fields, primarily serious games and virtual worlds. Last year I wrote a paper on the use of virtual worlds for classroom education, titled The (Virtual) Classroom of Tomorrow. This article was first published in TechEdge, the journal for the Texas Computer Education Association. It is available in PDF format over on EduQuery.com.

The article has been chosen for inclusion in a reference book from the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India University Press. The working title for the book is Virtual Reality – Real Applications. Publication is slated for later this year.