Daniel makes stuff, and, in his spare time, writes about things like movies, kid culture, and geek stuff.
"The Internet Will Make You Smarter"

A survey of 895 web users and experts found that more than three-fourths of respondents believe the Internet is improving people’s reading, writing and “the rendering of knowledge.”

Fascinating perspectives here:

[The study] was prompted in part by an August 2008 cover story in the Atlantic Monthly by technology writer Nicholas Carr headlined: “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”

Carr suggested in the article that heavy use of the Web was chipping away at users’ capacity for concentration and deep thinking. Carr, who participated in the survey, told the authors he still agreed with the piece.

“What the ‘Net does is shift the emphasis of our intelligence away from what might be called a meditative or contemplative intelligence and more toward what might be called a utilitarian intelligence,” Carr said in a release accompanying the study. “The price of zipping among lots of bits of information is a loss of depth in our thinking.”

But Craigslist founder Craig Newmark said, “People are already using Google as an adjunct to their own memory.

“For example, I have a hunch about something, need facts to support and Google comes through for me,” he said in the release.

I’m with Craig on this one; being able to pull out my iPhone and do a quick Google search or pull up Wikipedia has profoundly changed the types of information I bother remembering. I don’t remember who said it (ha, case-in-point), but: “It’s not how much information you can remember, but it’s what you do with that information that matters.”

In that sense, the exact opposite of what Carr suggests is true (at least for me): The Internet has actually freed me from worrying about the superfluous to allow me to engage in those “bigger picture” things that do require concentration and deep thinking.

Feb 21, 2010 :: Tagged under: , , , :: #

"Let’s Banish Critical Thinking"

In the first of his multi-part series, K.D. Washburn considers the role of “Critical Thinking” in education – and makes the case that it’s been long since time we banish the phrase in favor of a different, less complex model. He also calls for a balanced acceptance of the role of memorization in learning – yes, I as well first went, “Ugh, memorization” – and he makes a strong argument for it’s use in education, when emphasized appropriately.

Meanwhile in his second part, Washburn expands on the four “core processes” of learning: experience, comprehension, elaboration and application. The practical takeaway in understanding these concepts – which Washburn lays out well – is immense for educators and anyone else who works with kids.

Washburn promises more posts on the subject in the future.

(Via Bethe Almeras.)

Feb 15, 2010 :: Tagged under: , :: #

Why the "Crap" in Your Kid's Life Can Be a Good Thing

By Daniel Bigler :: Sunday January 24, 2010

I’d love to get more into this discussion, but here’s the short, Daniel-sadly-has-an-essay-to-write version:

Lori Pickert homeschools her two boys in a philosophy a bit akin to Unschooling, though she relies on her own past experience as a Reggio Emilia-inspired educator to help her boys extend their learning into project-based, arts-supported exploration. She was recently commenting on how we tend to dichotomise reading and video games – juxtaposing them as opposing activities, with the expectation that reading and video games are both competing for our kids’ attention and time. The reality, though, she mentions, is that they can be very complementary activities.

I thought this was a very solid way of looking at it, and so I said (in the comments) how stories that we find our kids interacting with often now take shape within trans-media universes – think of “Star Wars” as an example, which is now represented in two trilogies of films, a cartoon TV show, countless books for all reading levels, video games, toys, trading cards, the pair of underwear I’m wearing right now (ahem)… it just goes on. Overkill on the platforming and commodification? You might think so at first. But it’s all about the connections – kids can explore the same idea or story (even “Star Wars”) through countless varying iterations, platforms and approaches, in ways that cater to all learning styles. In short, taking a single concept and exploring it in these different ways is educationally, neurologically one of the best ways kids learn. This is the same idea behind the Project Approach, as well.

That idea – that connections are good, and connections between media (between reading, TV, video games, and other activities) are even better – led into this new post by Lori, entitled “Limits Can Be So… Limiting.” She uses the piece to emphasise that we tend as adults to prioritise or value children’s activities over others – for example, saying that “Reading is better than watching TV,” and “Playing outside is better than playing video games.” We tend to label a lot of the stuff and activities in our kids’ lives as “crap,” simply based on our own values – our own preconceived notions of what kids “should” be doing. But how are we really so sure that what we think is bad (or, at least, less good) for them really is all that bad? It’s something to think about, and certainly makes you question the notion of “crap.”

But all of that is now, actually, just a lead in for this – a follow-up comment to Lori’s piece, made by Patricia:

I recently read Michael Chabon’s book of essays “Manhood for Amateurs” (and am re-listening to the audiobook, it’s so good.) Again and again throughout the book, Chabon returns to the notion of the “crap” in kids’ lives, and how it’s not necessarily a bad thing. He writes of “making something new of what you have been given by your culture”. And really, Chabon is the poster boy for the idea of learning from “crap”: he spent his childhood immersed in the world of comics, which I’m sure might worry some parents. But what did he grow up to do? Win the Pulitzer Prize.

For a book based on comics.

All I have left to say: I absolutely love it.

Tagged under: , , , :: #




Why Do We Learn?

Science writer Ed Yong, in a piece entitled “Why Information is its Own Reward: Same Neurons Signal Thirst for Water, Knowledge”:

Discovering a previously elusive fact or soaking up a finely crafted argument can be as pleasurable as eating a fine meal when hungry or dousing a thirst with drink. This isn’t just a fanciful analogy – a new study suggests that the same neurons that process the primitive physical rewards of food and water also signal the more abstract mental rewards of information.

Jul 23, 2009 :: Tagged under: , :: #

Attention: the Real Reason Why Kids Have Trouble In School?

Recent pediatric studies are suggesting new reasons for why a kid might have trouble in school:

A study in last month’s Pediatrics shows that the greater a child’s attention problems at age 6, the more likely that child will perform poorly on tests of math and reading in the last few years of high school. Contrary to some of their own expectations, researchers found no connection between achievement and behavioral problems, whether they were aggressive actions (such as children pushing classmates or lashing out at the teacher) or issues like depression or withdrawal.

And… I never read the rest. Maybe you can tell me what it says.

(But how’s this for a postscript: It’s really good that at least science – if only education would get there too – is getting away from the ridiculously regimental and outdated behaviorist concepts and frameworks that have driven most of our collective policy and work with young children.)

(Another postscript: If you’re at all interested in childhood ADHD, there’s some good stuff in here. Julie Schweitzer, a co-author of the aforementioned study, points to mounting evidence from the field of neuroscience that suggests “that ADHD has its roots in a person’s physiology” – and while she doesn’t come out and say it, her remarks do subtly lend credence in my mind to the “Hunter vs. Farmer” theory of the causes of ADHD, which posits that some people are genetically predisposed with ADHD-like symptoms, to help them better thrive off short, periodic episodes of excitement and action. While those with ADHD appear to lack focus generally, often they also have the ability to hyperfocus on particular tasks or objects when they’re uniquely engaged in them. Speaking personally as one with ADHD, I experience “hyperfocus” quite a fair bit.)

(The last post-script, I promise: The “Tools of the Mind” method mentioned in the article is, indeed, pretty fascinating. I can see a lot of future educational potential to it.)

Jul 21, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , , , :: #

Are Boys and Girls Really All That Different?

An old – but outstanding – 2007 piece from the Boston Globe:

Boys and girls are different because their brains are different. This idea has driven bestsellers, parenting articles, and even – increasingly – American education.

The problem is, a hard look at the real data behind these claims suggests they are simply untrue. Some of them are baseless, using the language of science to cloak an absence of serious research; others are built on tenuous studies, with methodological flaws and narrow margins of significance. More and more, they are simply coating old-fashioned stereotypes with a veneer of scientific credibility.
Authors Caryl Rivers and Rosalind C. Barnett reinforced two especially important take-away concepts for me here:

1) Gender ideas, stereotypes, and poorly-based categorizations are always the wrong thing to go about basing our practices and policy on, in any aspect of life; we have to recognize that we’re all individuals, and that we learn, live, and understand differently. We should think micro, not macro, in our approach – especially when it comes to how we treat kids.

2) Scientific headlines can’t be trusted; a dedication to the process of science is instead what we should strive toward. Again and again, we come across sensational headlines about the latest study proving this, or new research proving that. Context is our friend; we can’t prove anything with a magic headline. Rather, real understanding comes out slowly, with a full appreciation for the complexities of the real world.

Beyond those two things, I think we have an even more pressing moral to take away from the story: never take Michael Gurian’s word for anything.

(Via Alfie Kohn.)

Jul 15, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , :: #