Technology adds nothing to art. Two thousand years ago, I could tell you a story, and at any point during the story I could stop, and ask, Now do you want the hero to be kidnapped, or not? But that would, of course, have ruined the story. Part of the experience of being entertained is sitting back and plugging into someone else’s vision.
Penn Jillette, Interview in WIRED magazine
Growing up I was a huge fan of both Choose Your Own Adventure books and more traditional linear novels. I certainly liked the idea of being able to choose my own path in the story, however, I never seemed to choose correctly and always ended up making choices that lead to an unfortunate and premature end. On the other hand, with the more traditional novels I was never left disappointed at how things ended. Whether I finished the last page with a feeling of sadness or joy I cannot recall a single time where I wished it had ended differently, even in the most tragic circumstances. The linear novel may have restricted my involvement in plot development, however, I think that it was precisely because my involvement was limited (i.e. that I sat back and plugged in to some else’s vision) that I was more satisfied and enriched by the experience.
Matters of choice have been on my mind as of late (mostly due to the fact that I am reading The Paradox of Choice by Barry Schwartz) and issues of technology almost always are. I’ve pretty much taken it as a given that more user choice, more interactivity, is the golden standard that is being aimed for as technology develops and evolves. However, I can’t help but wonder if there are certain situations, in entertainment, education and user interface (three areas where interactivity and user choice are touted as ideal) where choice should be restricted and the flow of the narration or the experience should be left to those who are skilled enough to make those choices in the first place.
Would I have felt differently if I had made more successful choices while reading the Choose Your Own Adventure books as a child, or is there something to be said for sitting back and plugging in and letting a experienced storyteller choose the adventure for you?
Last week I was fortunate enough to be in attendance for David Jonassen’s thought-provoking talk “Engaging and Supporting Problem Solving Online”. I had not heard of him prior to this engagement but within minutes of his presentation I wished that I (along with everyone else involved in education) had heard of him sooner.
What he had to say was simple and obvious yet totally overlooked for the most part in education - knowledge that is constructed in context is more meaningful, more easily integrated, better retained, and more transferable than knowledge created in an artificial situation like an exam. Given that we encounter numerous problems during the day - from where to park to what to make for dinner - problem solving is the most meaningful and relevant activity that we engage in.
Instead of teaching for tests Jonassen suggests that we should be teaching in for the real world - after all, it’s in the real world and not an examination hall that the application of knowledge truly counts. This means you have to engage learners by creating an authentic learning environment that has meaning and Jonassen suggests that technology can be a useful tool in creating these environments. Currently, technology for the most part is being used as a way to distribute course content that was previously delivered on paper - class notes, readings, tests, etc. This is all fine and dandy, and hopefully a few trees have been spared thanks to this electronic distribution process, however this hardly classifies as online learning. You don’t change learning by simply changing the distribution of the learning materials.
Jonassen suggest that we go beyond this distribution model and use technology to create meaningful learning environments that support problem solving. In these environments, technology is used both to distribute information about the problem and to help guide users towards a solution. Although problems will differ both in complexity and across domains, what is consistent is the way that technology can be applied to assist in the problem solving process. Simulations are easily accomplished thanks to the data crunching power of computers and are an excellent way for students to experiment with different variables and their resulting outcomes. Simulations would work for a variety of different problems including supply/demand analysis in economics and physical simulations for engineering. Jonassen also suggests the use of constraint-based discussion boards where restrictions are placed on the types of posts students can make in a discussion by encouraging researched-based as opposed to opinion-based responses. These types of boards would be very effective in for domains where problem solving requires decision-making and argumentation skills, such as design or policy analysis.
Using simulations and constraint-based discussion boards are just two examples of the many novel ways to use technology to create meaningful learning environments that engage the learners in problem solving. These are by no means fancy solutions - they are novel in their underlying approach and not in the technology used to implement them. Before we can effectively use technology we must look at how we are teaching. Once we understand that technology is the tool and not the teacher we will be able to harness the full power of the technology and teach to meaningful learning outcomes that support problem solving.
More information on David Jonassen’s work can be found at the Center for the Study of Problem Solving and on the Design Constructivist Learning Environments resource page.
I came across the article “Wired up, plugged in, zoned out” this morning which made me livid. I’m usually a pretty calm person when reading the paper on a bright Sunday morning, but the paranoia and one-sidedness of this article deeply troubled me. While I could go on about all of the benefits of technology and some of the drawbacks, it basically comes down to the fact that we can’t wholly blame the technology for how it is used and instead we have to look at the users and why the users make the choices that they do. I felt compelled to make a comment on the Globe and Mail site (a first for me) which went as follows:
I use personalization to filter out the junk that is delivered by the so-called “common sources” that this article praises. Personalization will eventually result in the death of pop culture and I can’t help but wonder if that is such a bad thing if that means we no longer have to read about Bradgelina or listen to “My Humps” by the Black-Eyed Peas.
Personalization gives the user the choice in what they want to consume. Some people will make choices that result in an echo chamber and others will make choices that result in a bazaar of opinions and options. Instead of cursing the technology for giving us the power to choose perhaps we should look at how we are making choices. Individuals need to be taught how to evaluate various news sources and empowered with critical thinking skills to assess the content being provided by those sources. Personalization by technology is here to stay and instead of yearning for the good ol’ days of the “daily masses” we should be encouraging individuals to create the best possible ?��Ǩ?�daily me”.
It may seem out of context without having first read the article but my point is clear - the problem is not that we can choose but how we make choices. Personalization technology will keep advancing like the juggernaut that it is and we need to keep up to speed by ensuring that information literacy and critical thinking skills are taught so that we are making the choices and not the technology.