When to step away from technology

Continuing the discussion from Week 1 Activity:

A great point brought up by @Sandy 's blog post relates to when technology can actually hinder creative learning (and childhood experiences overall).

I think that a great quality of an instructor, parent, and other adults helping to influence a child's life is in their ability to recognize when technology can enhance and when it can hinder.

What are your thoughts on this? As we look at Papert's Mindstorms to consider some of technology's role in creative learning and as we continue along this LCL, what should be considered to help identify when a learning experience might be in danger of becoming hindered by technology?

There may be instances when the application of technology should be adjusted but there may also be times when technology itself should be shelved and a different environment used as an approach (nature walk, playing outside, etc.)

Any thoughts on this?

This is a great topic, mainly because I so often feel like everyone thinks technology is the be all, end all for everything. While, from where I am, I see us getting farther and farther away from cultivating our natural humanistic qualities like interpersonal communication, for example.

As someone who designs and co-facilitates learning events in developing countries, another colleague and I have totally re-tooled how we present information. We limit the dreaded PPT as much as is humanly possible, and if we can draw a flipchart with good old fashioned markers, we do that instead of whipping up another PPT slide. I am finding that for whatever reason, information and thoughts presented in analogue (that's the fancy word for old fashioned stuff like masking tape, markers, kraft paper...) seem to be taken in more thoughtfully. I'm not sure if there is a subconscious attraction to something that is "handmade" (hand drawn flipchart) vs. computer generated (PPT) - it is the same information, yet I see a physical difference in people's attention to the former. With a PPT they tend to sit back, looking bored, but with a hand drawn poster/flipchart, etc. they seem to sit forward in their seats, their body language more alert and switched on, if you will. I don't think it's my imagination, I do think what I'm experiencing and observing is real.

I work in areas like HIV and AIDS, where the development world are like sandpipers on a beach...they all start running after the latest technology, hoping it's the golden ticket, the silver bullet for whatever issue they are trying to address. For example, mHealth is huge in the development arena right now. Why? Because some folks think everyone has a mobile phone and thus, we can provide vital but sensitive information through a more personal electronic communication device. Sure, it sounds great, but at the end of the day, reaching the most hard to reach populations will not be achieved through mobile phones. It will be achieved through interpersonal communication. You know, good old fashioned human-to-human interaction. I trust you. I look up to you. So you pass along information to me and you and I have the skills to discuss back and forth until I come to a decision on that particular health behavior. But a message or some information on a phone isn't going to replace that human interaction.

So what should be considered? I think there is enormous merit in always having the "back to basics" or the "analog" version of something either on deck, or mixed into the learning to ensure that we have the humanistic tools, not only the nifty gadgetry tools, to succeed in whatever it is we are learning. Not sure if I'm making sense or rambling...

You addressed both accessibility as well as how learning materials help shape a learning experience.

Friends at another online forum I haunt have been discussing PowerPoint (PPT) slideshows and alternatives very recently. Fermilab recently made PBS news about their transition to whiteboard-only presentations, where PPT slideshows have been outright banned. You can read more here:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/fermilab-shuns-powerpoint-embraces-social-media/

I think even with PPT it is possible to blend experiences that combine digital slides with analog and kinesthetic learning. Even digital slides can be useful, but here is a unique opportunity to consider when to break from technology (e.g., turn the lights on to ask for questions and encourage discussion) as well as how to adapt to an audience's needs and engagement (e.g., somehow allow participants to interact with the slideshow, prepare varied slides to jump to in hopes of having visual aides available for when the discussion is steered in unique directions by the participating audience, etc).

I do think that PPT specifically can have purpose, but I also have to agree that methods you describe have considerable value for different reasons. I think that some stigma of PPT can be overcome with unique and engaging preparation, but PPT should not be considered an end-all be-all for presenting information and engaging learners.

It would behoove a presenter to identify when to incorporate PPT and when other methods may be more conducive to alert and creative learning, especially where collaboration may be involved and desired.

James, that's really interesting and I would LOVE to ban PPT, to be honest! It's a crutch that promotes rote memorization, rather than promotion of two way dialogue, at least in my area of work.

The question of when to use PPT though, that's a good question. Interestingly, a small handful of folks who have taken my learning events recently, have said they would like some more PPT versions of the materials and I suspect that this is because they are younger and more accustomed to seeing everything in PPT. It's also easy to refer back to PPTs if you have a copy, for sure. One thing we've started doing is giving every participant a flash drive at the end of the event, and the drive has all the PPTs, handouts, video discussion starters, etc. that we use in the course. There is actually more that we cant get to in the course of the week that is on the drives they receive. We are trying to demystify learning in a way, by giving out freely, the content we designed for their customized event. We hope that they will be able to use this reference library to share with others whom they work with at several levels (co-workers, partners, community stakeholders, government partners, etc.).

The most powerful use of technology for me in this process has been the ability to download provocative and thought provoking videos (from TED, YouTube, Vimeo) to use as discussion starters. I have found that visual examples of sometimes complex concepts are very easily understood through watching a two minute video. People have that AHA! moment, where if I tried to take them through a PPT slide show of the same material, they would likely think I was bonkers and they'd be lost.

Another thing we've done is deconstruct PPT slides. Meaning, we see a slide that illustrates a complex idea or concept that we want folks to learn about, so we look at the slide for a while, and figure out how to take it apart and make it into a game. I took a slide that illustrated the Modes of Participation from a human rights based approach, and I made it into a table game, where each table team gets a layer of cards and they have to build this matrix that eventually illustrates the slide, but the way they put it together takes time, and teams have to talk to each other and debate why a certain card would be more or less participatory than another. It generates the old grey cells and people have that aha moment where they suddenly realize, "oh wow, I'm not very participatory in how I've been working, I had no idea!" Those are deep learning moments where a PPT simply cannot provide the same impact moment. At least that's been my experience so far.

@shari

I really like how you have implemented your tabletop card game as a learning experience. It sounds like a very unique way of providing learners with an opportunity to build their understanding very much in accord with the spirit of what I took from Chapter 1 of Papert's Mindstorms.

I think there are ways to make digital slideshows more interactive, especially with advances in technology. This can range from embedding YouTube videos like you mentioned in a slideshow even to something previously as unattainable as augmented reality presentations that can be altered by audience live using Google Glass or similar technology.

This does little good when cutting edge technology is not available or has presented itself as an obstacle even with a carefully tailored and more fully interactive PPT.

Beware of snarky humor and some content that could be considered on the milder side of NSFW, but here is a funny slideshow about slideshows a friend shared recently.

James, that PPT 'manifesto' is fab, thanks for sharing it!

I think both of you are right. Many young people have trained themselves to learn through a PowerPoint. As @Shari has said though, technology hinders our memory in a way that instead of truly understanding how and why something works/doesn't work, they tend to just look up the problem and are told instead of finding solutions themselves. I think that what Shari is doing is really awesome techniques. As for the technology use, it has it's place as a tool, augmented reality would be a great tool for learning and interacting with technology and even can help the students invent what they're thinking in front of them (of coarse with a crazy intense software program). I believe that technology allows us to cross a barrier where someone can be as creative as they want and interact effectively. So the question is "when to step away from technology", I think that it should just place the immediate information and allow the end user to figure out the solutions. So not take it away but to incorporate it in a more thoughtful way. Does that help?

I totally agree with you.I'm a teacher and sometimes basic methods work better than technological devices in teaching.Human is a social being.I believe that interacting with people efficiently or expressing oneself is more important than using a machine.

New generation of kids are addicted with technology. What is our role as tech teachers? Difficult to have a clear position yet. How do you treat on this addiction? How do you turn it into creative power? Technology is a tool but it also formulates our teching practices. I agree with seadreamer: the emphasis should remain on human interaction.

Intriguing topic. I wrote in another post the following: As a "grown-up" I feel I have the power to let go of technology and "be" with people. I worry about my own kids and my students not being to disconnect. We had a student have his phone taken away for a week or two. I asked how it was for him expecting him to say how he did so many other things. Instead he described how he felt it vibrating in his pocket even thought it wasn't there. Like a phantom limb! Crazy. Here is a post I wrote about technology and balance some time ago.

When I first started this journey into using more tech in the classroom, I started a Minecraft Exploratory at our school. I had many conversations with the people from 3DGameLab that originally inspired me. Dabbled in WoW in Second Life. I raised questions about spending too much time in these virtual worlds and that it was not real. She described a time when she and her son slayed a difficult dragon in WoW together as a very memorable and emotional moment. So this was strange to me, that virtual worlds produce real memories and emotions.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to balance as I wrote in the post I referenced above.

I admire the Computer Clubs for the ways they draw children into Peer-supported creative learning. But I wonder if Clubs for Peer-supported Creative Learning could run around Projects that weren't tech-focused. (Perhaps the tech companies & foundations wouldn't fund them, but that's a different issue.) In a way, this query follows Phillip's question in the week 1 video about how do people get interested. Insights about that question might help in designing Clubs for Peer-supported Creative Learning.

@pjtaylor

Something that I have really enjoyed about my experiences with Makerspaces is that many seem to dabble all across STEAM. At the space I regularly attend, one workshop might involve diving into Arduino for temperature control while another workshop might be about how to make fiber-reactive cloth dyed art (both examples were taught by the same person).

A lot of what I have realized while reading and exploring STEAM concepts is that technology and art can easily be put to use in tandem on the same project if not co-habitate on different projects in the same space.

There may be many tech-centric groups that focus more on digital art when art is involved, but that's not always the case by far.

As far as projects and learning strategies in general that are not technology-based (not just art), I feel like there is also some room to adapt and adopt here. An example is the use of Scratch cards to help give something physical for learners to look at and think about when learning about the Scratch technology. To me, this is one example of how a learning approach other than tech-based can be useful even for technology concepts or in technology-focused environments.

I think a lot of what we look at in LCL related to technology and learning can be applied in adapted duality to environments where technology is not a focus or not as accessible.

technology and art can easily be put to use in tandem on the same project if not co-habitate on different projects in the same space...There may be many tech-centric groups that focus more on digital art when art is involved, but that's not always the case by far.

James, this is so interesting to me because back in another life, I was a photographer. Fine Arts, spending hours out in the field creating images based on location, light, timing, apertures, film types, you name it. So many things to consider, and it can all go to hell if you screw up rolling the film into its developing container. Or you can realize once the film is developed, that you didn't get what you wanted to capture that day.

Nowadays it's difficult to even find a wet darkroom to work in, let alone buy actual film. I see many images in websites that are lovely images but they were not created with the knowledge of photography, or the understanding of a specific master photographer that perhaps influenced you, or even any knowledge of darkroom developing/printing techniques. Nowadays, you set your digital camera to auto, take a shot, and you run it through Photo Shop and with a push of a button you get the effect that it took me sometimes weeks or months to get. Does that make it as beautiful or precious a photo?

To me, it does not, it actually devalues that image because I know the person who took it just snapped a picture and pushed a button on their computer to make that image look the way it does, I know the level of effort, skill and creativity it would take for that image to be made the old fashioned way, so I look at images now and say, "oh, nice effect", instead of "WOW, that is amazing!" Sadly, I don't feel anything for the easy version. And that's a humanistic quality that we should never lose sight of, that as human beings we feel things in complex ways. Seemingly random thought, but it's related to this discussion, is that it seems a lot of what I hear from the teen community are things like "friends with benefits" is popular because it's not distracting and you don't get hurt - it's easy. So we have a portion of today's kids who are perfectly okay with not learning human social skills as they grow up. That's scary to me.

All that aside, I do rather adore Oliver so I'm not totally machine-adverse!

I am a musician, and I find that what hinders musical creativity is the same thing that hinders creativity when using technology: we assume the way something is traditionally used or the way something is intended to be used is the "correct" way, and then decide to ignore other options. The Avant Garde movement sought to disrupt the traditional way of creating music, and while it wasn't all sonorous, it was certainly creative.

There was a conversation talking about "Parameters" being a 5-th P, and I think that's spot on. You have to consider the parameters that you are thinking in... And you have to consider the parameters you are subconsciously using. Sometimes, these parameters give you a starting place that helps you with the iterative creative spiral, and sometimes, they just give you a ceiling that you put yourself at odds with.

rylan, I can see your perspective too on this. You're right, avant garde art, no matter what medium, has always sought to move away from, or build upon whatever is considered the status quo in that moment of time. I guess what I was saying above is that there is a difference when one consciously decides to move away from, or build upon the status quo with a certain level of foundational knowledge about how we got to the point we're at now in any given artistic medium, vs. just embracing technology and not having any foundational knowledge of the history of whatever medium you're working in. I know a lot of folks who identify as "photographers" but have zero understanding of the photographic medium they are using. So they aren't building on any specific movement or anything historical, they're just playing with photo shop. To me that is very different from a person who knows photo history, the various movements within photography, and then makes a conscious decision to move in a new/different direction that's springboarding off something else. That is more what avant garde movements do, because they have to have some deeper understanding of how their medium got to the place it is right now, in order to buck tradition, and move in new directions. Does that make sense?

We might have more room to explore these ideas in a different topic that deals more with concepts like "avante garde vs creative play" or "when can pushing boundaries be considered avante garde."

Many of the modern photographer's digital tools come from unexpected places, like NASA. I think that getting in touch with and learning about different photography methodologies, theory and tools (past, present and future) can enrich photography for someone interested in such. I do not think that there is a certain required and measurable knowledge of things such as photography history which can somehow serve as a hands-down prerequisite or credibility authentication for photography as an art. Further, I don't see avante-garde art as necessarily demanding specific items from artist such as how much is intentionally based in otherwise traditional foundational knowledge. Traditionally, the concept of avante-garde eludes definitive theory concerning topics just like these despite many best attempts.

Like many concepts in art, it may be easier to accurately say something like, "this is beautiful to me" or "I do not think this is avant-garde" than it can be to try to accurately describe an art as "this is definitely beautiful" or "this is definitely not avant-garde."

I think an important thing to think about is that art can be one of those things that can deepen in quality meaning and satisfaction for the artist with more effort and care, like a birdhouse built by a crafter. That can be a difference between art and craft, however, because unlike the crafters birdhouse, an artistic effort may be appreciated in stark contrast to the effort put in. I might base a year's work on rich history of oil paintings and passionate care, to which a passerby may assume took an evening. On the other hand, I might get an abstract piece into MoMA that I composed in thirty seconds by flicking a brush and no one would be the wiser.

Part of art is the artist's satisfaction of getting something out and part of art is what the artist desires that art to do after becoming alive and gaining the ability to change the world and other perspectives.

A big part of what avant-garde art can be involves social reform. In one example, consider a traditional photographer who submits a piece clearly steeped in rich art history with a subtle change in style working to push the boundary of photography. In a next example, consider a modern photographer with no apparent understanding of photography history and only fluency in digital image editing software but who's piece is circulated online and works to undermine and change broken social policy. I would be more prone to calling the modern photographer's piece avant-garde if I had to pick only one of the two, but would classify both as art.

That's just me, and I think that is a point. I think anyone can benefit from knowing when to step away from technology, but that decision may look different from person to person. For an educator, this may involve being in tune with when learners no longer benefit from technology as a tool for a given project or lesson or when learners need a break from technology. For an artist, this may mean a personal choice to step away from technology to return to basics and become learned and practiced in areas such as art history related to their medium. I do not think this is a choice that can be spelled out accurately for someone else, however.

I agree because students like working with their own background I mean be creative with materials like ,plants,stones etc,using their imagination

I had a couple thoughts as we wrap up the week on Passion and start peeking ahead into the week on Peers.

It might be easier to identify when to step away from technology with a learner when their passion seems to conflict with the chosen technology. In my mind, some extreme cases should be common sense items. It might be more difficult to identify a best practice in less extreme cases, but a basic spirit of concept can be easy to relate to. If technology has become intrusive, negatively-disruptive, and frustrating for a learner with a given project, simply seek different technology or an approach that is far removed from technology altogether.

Another critical consideration relates to peers and can be more difficult to identify (and may require unique challenges in creative solutions). What happens in a learning team when learning seem unbalanced due to conflicts with learning modality?

Imagine one learning team where half struggle in traditional learning environments but seem to excel and really expand on topics when given a digital medium like an online classroom. However, the other half seems a polar opposite that struggles with digital environments but excels profoundly in comparison in traditional and live social learning environments.

Depending on the specific details, there's likely an treasure trove of creative solutions and working through challenges may even be a meaningful learning experience on interpersonal intelligence. That doesn't make it easy.

How can you tell when a learning group needs to step away from technology altogether versus a creative solution that somehow affords multiple learning styles and strategies?

What could some of those creative solutions look like?

How important is it to be able to know when and how to relate technological terms and concepts to someone unfamiliar with, intimidated by, or uninterested in deeper understanding of the technology?

Do you have examples of a situation where technology itself presented unique challenges with peer learning?