Prompt: Our discussion prompts for this module comes directly from our readings...

• Do technologies make us smarter (or dumber)?

• Is this even the right question?

• Are there other cognitive and socio-emotional factors to consider?

​

Response: My first reaction to the question was a definite “no,” technology does not make us smarter. It can make us more efficient but not necessarily smarter. But as I read the articles, I came to doubt my assumptions. What drew me in was how technology was defined, particularly how Salomon and Perkins included symbol systems as technologies--“writing, mathematical notation, musical notation, and so on” (73). This got me thinking as such systems do facilitate thinking on a deeper level. If I sit down to reflect in writing about my day and the meaning of the world or any particular problem or dilemma, existential or otherwise, I will likely develop my thoughts and ideas more fully than if I were to simply sit there and ruminate on them. And if I create a habit of reflection in writing, I do think that I would develop my mind more so than if I avoided the activity. So, in this sense, technologies do make us smarter, or at least have the potential to make us smarter by giving us a tool with which to develop our intellect, but the habit building, the manner in which we use it, is up to us. This conditions the extent to which ‘technology makes us smarter.’ 

​

Salomon and Perkins also discuss technologies that “carry out cognitive work—calculators, statistical packages, word processors, outliners” (73). If we stick with the example of writing, then does a word processor make us smarter? How is this any different than a paper and pencil or even a paint brush and canvas or a rock and chisel? The tools we use perhaps make us smarter, but is any one making us smarter than the other? In the later stages of his career, philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche described his switch from handwriting to using a typewriter: “The machine is impersonal, it deprives the piece of work of its little bit of humanity.” And he prefaced these remarks with: “Our writing tools are working on our thoughts” (qtd. in Bluemel Links to an external site.). While we can chalk this sentiment up to the general generational paranoia of changing society, one thing stands out: that Nietzsche realized the tool used for writing changed how he wrote and/or how his ideas were expressed. This observation is shared by other writers, such as Truman Capote and Alejandro Zambra (Bluemal, Links to an external site.2018). When I think about this, we could be led to the claim that technology does not necessarily make us smarter, but it may change the way we think or express ourselves. Or, we may say that technology makes some smarter because the tool it provides works better for their thinking/learning style than any other tool previously used.  

​

Wilmer, Sherman, and Chein’s article brought this discussion from the general (technology as tools to perform cognitive work, as discussed in Salomon and Perkins) to the specific act of using smartphones. This article in general comes to less optimistic conclusions, even though it is careful to acknowledge the assumptions in those conclusions and sidestep any definitive claims in the end. But the research that suggests that dependency on GPS diminishes your attention to and understanding of your surroundings, that taking pictures in place of real time study diminishes your ability to recall information, and that habitual smartphone use disrupts work performance and deep focus on tasks is concerning. I feel that I have experienced this myself on several occasions. Even writing this, I have stopped to look at my phone, open it up, look at a few things and then set it down. Why do I do this? No real reason other than to just fidget with something for a time. But is this a bad thing? I also stand up and pace around from time to time when I am writing, or I’ll get something to snack on even when I’m not hungry. These are sort of ‘mental breaks’ that weave their way into my work process. True, there is the issue of social media scrolling sucking your time away, or even obsessively checking email, so there is the element of avoiding these types of habits when it comes to smartphones. Wilmer et al sums up research on everyday smartphone use by pointing out that “the degree to which one can exert executive over behavior and maintain goal-related representations (in working memory) may explain individual differences in vulnerability to the ‘real life’ consequences of mobile device habits” (11). All in all, I think technology makes us think differently, which is not necessarily smarter or dumber. It can make us more or less creative or more or less efficient, depending on how we use it.   

Prompt: Our discussion will center on your perspectives on what is most important when evaluating learning and cognitive effects and outcomes in people/technology partnerships. In other words, do you favor a systemic or analytic approach to evaluating outcomes? Could it be different for different partnerships, grade levels, learning situations, etc.

Response: I think evaluating outcomes of people/tech partnerships is heavily dependent on context and perspective. For example, many of my students use a program called Grammarly to help with proofreading their papers. They essentially click on sentence-level recommendations, and hopefully the essay sounds better in the end. I view this as ‘effects with’ the partnership. However, perhaps the paper does not sound better? Perhaps, in an effort to be ‘correct,’ students edited out a tone and voice that was perhaps more effective even if it was less . . . perfect. Also, perhaps the ‘click’ method of fixing sentences does not inspire much if any reflection. So, is learning really taking place? Another concerning tool is EasyBib. Students often use this service for their source citations but they rarely know what information to input in order to generate a correct citation or simply click from a list of generated (and incorrect) citations based on the title. It should be noted that these example partnerships are with technologies not intentionally integrated into the class. One relative issue that this calls to mind is Salomon and Almog’s (1998) discussion of internet surfing and the “Butterfly Defect.” They call attention to Wright and Vliestra’s (1975) distinction between ‘exploration’ and a goal-oriented ‘search.’ The effect of exploration such as internet surfing and exploring hypermedia, they worry, is a superficial, “visually-lured wandering” that can “affect cognitive preferences or conceptions of knowledge.” This concern calls attention to not only the need for structured, goal-oriented activities but also the importance of metacognition and self-regulation--that the learner be mindfully and intentionally engaged in the partnership. 

​

The theme of mindful engagement echos Salomon, Perkins, and Globerson’s (1991) notion that “cognitive effects with computer tools greatly depend on the mindful engagement of learners.” And this I agree with. If I had to choose an approach to evaluating outcomes it would be the systemic approach. When discussing outcomes, however, one must also question whether the so-called “old outcomes” should be revamped to reflect the intellectual partnership with technology, as Salomon and Almog (1998) mention. “If students engage in genuinely novel activities during intellectual partnership with technology, capitalizing on the novel technological affordances, what kinds of learning outcomes ought to be expected and measured? Are the desired outcomes (effects “of”) to be identical to the ones aimed at before the new affordances were available? Or, to put it differently, should all those technological novelties (. . .) come to serve no more than traditional educational goals crystallized in a much earlier era?” (p. 233). This point intrigued me, and it made me think about whether the learning goals for my classes are out of date, particularly those that are intrinsically connected to a partnership with technology, such as those that focus on research.

In terms of successful integration of technology in the classroom, how do we as teachers do this in a way that also teaches mindful engagement? I got some insight from Christine Edward-Groves (2011) article, which highlights the importance of social interaction and creativity when integrating technology. The main example in her study centers around student collaboration to design a video that presents research. Edward-Groves study emphasizes the role of creativity and interactivity as necessary to engage and motivate students. We’ve seen the importance of social interaction as a common theme in many readings on pedagogy, and it is also discussed in Solomon (1998): “Good learning is a process of socially based, active co-construction of contextualized knowledge and webs of relations among its nodes.” Collaboration becomes a bit more tricky in the asynchronous classroom given its social limitations relative to face-to-face classes. I have had good success with technology such as Hypothesis Links to an external site.because it primarily facilitates a collaborative activity that is more conducive to the online format than in-person—annotating texts in collaboration with others. I also think there is more of a need to emphasize metacognitive tasks that promote strategies for “mindfulness and self-regulation" in online classes when opportunities for collaboration are limited.