Soapbox

I took another classic learning style test, this time by Felder and Solomon of North Carolina State University.  No big surprises; I am a visual learner who prefers learning through active application and discovery of possible relationships.

However, there is something more that needs to be taken from the idea of the learning style test.

One of multimedia’s strengths is its potential for nonlinear, random-access presentation of information.  The current approach to integrating technology into the educational system is completely ignoring this potential.  Introducing a videogame or a film into the curriculum is simply paying lip service to multimedia.  We have the ability to cater the curriculum to individual learning styles.  Why not automatically develop custom units based statistically on the results from a learning style test?  This is not a new idea; Morrison and Lowther discuss a low-tech version using pencils and paper.  However, we can harness the computational power available to us to maximize educational productivity.  A student is more receptive to verbal communication?  Assign a custom homework unit, generated automatically based on learning style results, which includes a podcast.  With a little organization up front, the modularity and automation of the software package could handle the rest.  I think this possibility is definitely worth exploring.

I recently had lunch with a good friend of mine from the University of Delaware. She is currently researching the effects of “video-based” learning systems, such as the infamous Baby Einstein series. We we having a discussion about the place of technology in the classroom. I saw her suppress a cringe when I mentioned my research in educational gaming, and made a statement that no child of hers would be placed in front of a screen before the age of five. And I whole-heartedly agreed. But it was at that moment that I had a dawning realization.

Marc’s point is flawless; we are, in fact, speaking two different languages. However, it is not only the vocabulary that is different, but it is the connotations as well.

When a technologist such as myself mentions the word “game”, the educator’s mind instantly gravitates towards thoughts of the gratuitous violence present in the FPS, the common target when discrediting the game industry.

However, it is those same educators who probably have not entertained the thought of teaching basic economics using Lemonade Tycoon or decision-making and management using Virtual U.

This not only applies to gaming in education but to technology as a whole. Think of the possibilities that arise when you bring a device like the Eye-Fi into the classroom. Does your school have a wireless network? Equip your learners with Eye-Fi cameras and send them out into the playground to capture examples of local wildlife. Pictures are instantly uploaded to the class’ Flickr account for discussion. It’s hard to find a student who hasn’t picked up a Wiimote. Computer scientists like Johnny Chung Lee are using these devices, not for gaming, but for low-cost interactive whiteboards.

If any change is expected within the educational community, we have to break this mentality that technology is synonymous solely with a desktop computer. The “Digital Immigrants” don’t just have to learn to speak a broken dialect of memorized “grammar”; they need to speak (and understand) “fluently”.

And we should soon, because we are already behind.