Learning must be attentive to the moment, attentive to the text or topic, and connected beyond that particular moment or text or topic to other information, other realities, other experiences. This is how I resolve the digital device wars I posted about recently (here and here). It builds on the cognitive notion that learning is essentially about making connections (Proctor and Bernstein 2013). So, here are two broad modes of learning:
Grounding | Monotasking | Close Reading
Connecting | Multitasking | Distant (Connected) Reading
When I’m first introducing a concept or argument in class, then, I would ask students to get into grounding mode. This takes patience and focus, so that they get a clear understanding of the concept/argument. If they have succeeded in this step, they will be able to succinctly define it, or summarize it in their own words. Here is where that commonly valorized notion of monotasking comes into play, or (channelling my humanist friends) close reading. If digital devices are used during grounding mode, they may need to be offline to prevent unwelcome distraction…but they can be a valuable asset for notetaking, as I demonstrate to students. (Recall my earlier post, in which several linked resources recommend skills development in electronic notetaking—not the same as taking analog notes.) If devices are not being used for notetaking, they may need to be turned off. Grounding mode is nontrivial: it can take time to “get” a concept/argument, possibly several whole class sessions.
Once the concept or argument has been introduced, it’s time to get into connecting mode, so as to relate it to other concepts/arguments, or to relate it to practice or applications. If students succeed in this step, they will be able to situate it in the context of their existing knowledge, or other knowledge claims, or other (including practical) contexts, in order to compare or evaluate it based on this larger framework. Here is where multitasking plays a positive role, as connecting mode involves being aware of, including, and synthesizing multiple types and sources of information. This is also where distant (we could call it connected) reading may play a valuable role. Digital devices can be key to this step (accompanying group discussion and more traditional modalities) in helping students find relationships (e.g., via searching related content) and visualize these relationships (via sketching, concept mapping, network analysis, or other tools).
The process is iterative: once relations have been established, the student’s basic understanding of the concept may require revision. A classic example in environmental studies: the IPAT equation (Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology), which students often learn as settled truth, but which upon searching the literature (e.g., Chertow 2000) turns out to be deeply controversial, if not entirely misleading. One cannot, however, effectively critique IPAT if one does not appreciate its basic definition and uses…all of which require grounding mode. Perhaps, then, one could re-define IPAT (as one example, see Maniates 2001) by going back into grounding mode, focusing solely on revision of the concept, then re-situate the revised concept in connecting mode to see if it better resonates with the literature. Or, one may decide to reject IPAT as a sufficient explanation for environmental impacts, going into grounding mode to focus and come up with new concept/argument to take its place—if so, one would then have to assess its relative value via connecting mode.
The above resonates with the arguments of others; it’s not especially new. And the upshot: digital device use can both be a negative distraction to learning, and a positive means to establish connections while learning. Our focus should thus be on learning, and we should develop and clearly state policies, and train students in skills, to make full use of multiple learning modes. Blanket prohibitions of device use are as one-sided as the lack of clear policies helping students use (nor not use) devices wisely—neither helps students successfully navigate multiple modes of learning.
*Not Joni’s best song, but one of her best known, and thanks to SeitoAkai for the featured image.
References
- Chertow, M.R. 2000. “The IPAT Equation and Its Variants.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 4 (4): 13–29.
- Maniates, Michael F. 2001. “Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World?” Global Environmental Politics 1 (3): 31–52.
- Proctor, James D., and Jennifer Bernstein. 2013. “Environmental Connections and Concept Mapping: Implementing a New Learning Technology at Lewis & Clark College.” Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 3 (1): 30–41. doi:10.1007/s13412-013-0109-0.
Leave a Reply