Baby Thinks a Magazine is a Broken iPad!
Though not strictly an article on educational technologies - I believe this shot video has a place here. It is not about a learning theory, or even about the usefulness of technology in education, but simply the recording of the environment that today's toddlers grow up in.
The explanation under the video says:
The explanation under the video says:
... It shows real life clip of a 1-year old, growing among touch screens and print. And how the latter becomes irrelevant.
The author introduces (in my opinion rightfully so) the concept of a 'digital native' which according to Wikipedia is "...a person who was born during or after the general introduction of digital technology, and through interacting with digital technology from an early age, has a greater understanding of its concepts." But the term - originally coined by Marc Prensky in 2001 in his article "On the horizon" has implications for how educators integrate new technology - and place 'old' technology such as physical books, in the classroom. And perhaps more importantly, how to ensure that 'digital immigrants' - those who move into the 'territory' of the natives and who '... are expected to adapt and begin to adopt the native's custom..' catch up.
Both categories, natives and immigrants, pose a challenge for teachers and curriculum developers, many of whom, not because of where they come from, but because they were born afte the start of the digital nativity. Younger "technology guru's" are quick to make the case for a fully digital teaching and learning environment - but as one teacher on an education blog wrote: "...that rarely have they ever had it modeled ... in a real day-to-day classroom environment. They know how to use it, but they don't know how to use it to teach."
Having worked for E***ina, which markets itself as the first 'full service digital native agency', I have had the chance to listen to a lot of discussions about the 'complexity' of the 'brave new world' where 'nothing is like before' ... but I still went through reams of paper when I needed to study, annote and correct; we still rely on f2f meetings - in spite of a state-of-the-art video conference room. And even though I was already at 40 a dinosaur among the digital natives in the company, I often had to scramble to get a copy of the magazines I subscribed to, otherwise some young DN would have snapped it up before me.
But I agree - in a broader context - that digital technologies and the people who use them are changing society…Personal identity, privacy, safety, property rights, distribution of information, political activism and not to mention power, have all undergone significant transformation. Fear and apprehension of such change is normal - the same happened after Gutenberg had invented the printing press and ideas started spreading some 500 years ago - but access to information, without a 'knowledge-framework' is meaningless and ultimately useless. And I am not convinced that technology can provide such framework unassisted.
I strongly believe that the technology is a tool to enhance knowledge, a means to an end, and not an end in itself. In this sense, Isaac Asimov's "three laws of robotics" could be adapted to information technology and the information society:
1) Information technology may not harm society or allow it to come to harm.2) Information technology must be developed for human beings, except where such developments would conflict with the First Law.3) Information technology must justify its own existence as long as such justification does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
And just for the end - one more video...
Interesting stuff.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I would like to say that I am impressed with the cognitive skills of both babies. They really seem to understand the concepts of touch screens technology and how to work the ipad; the baby in the second film even goes one step further - she relies on knowledge that she gained earlier in working with the iPhone and applies it, successfully (though with trial-and-error and a little hint) on the new toy... This is like seeing the theories of behaviurims and cognitivism as explained by Prof. Lombaerts into practice, live.
Behaviourism can explain some of the the (very quick) learning processes because an action (swiping the finger over the screen) results in a response (the application opens); the cognitive activity is evident because appropriate strategies to to reach the desired goal.are retained and inefficient strategies are discarded.
But on a more subliminal level, I am impressed with the fine motor skills. Both children are under the age of 2 - and yet they show stages of development that classical theories - especially Piaget - would have placed in a later stage of development. It is true that basic (intentional) eye-hand coordination starts developing between the 9 and 12 months, and in the next 6 to 12 months a child starts 'internalising' and thus "Infants develop the ability to use primitive symbols and form enduring mental representations." This stage is associated primarily with the beginnings of insight, or true creativity.I feel that both children have already moved into a much more advanced stage, the pre-operational stage. Between ages 2 and 4, kids cannot yet manipulate and transform information in logical ways, but they now can think in images and symbols. This is what is observed here.
Which brings me to a third point: has new technology influenced development and are we witnessing a form of evolutionary adaption of human skills? Has 'homo sapiens sapines' started evolving into 'homo sapiens interneticus' as some have argued. It merits looking into...
By the way, they often call these things 'toys-for-boys', but notice that these are girls! Girlz Rule!!!