Distracting Education: Social Media vs Deep Knowledge

Life, Stan Wayman, 1964

I never got to see The Beatles live in concert, but my Mum did. And apparently they were loud; well, the screaming was - she didn't hear much of the music, but she never forgot the experience.

Today, I can listen to The Beatles or watch a performance. I can join an online group to discuss which Beatle was more talented, or better looking. But I can never see them perform live; never enjoy Beatlemania.

Applying this to education; I believe virtual teaching, and embedded social media, are beneficial in some circumstances, but they are inferior substitutes for discussions in a real-world space with an expert mentor and a group of peers. They may in fact distract from a deep learning experience.

Video Conference and shared Interactive Whiteboard

Virtual Classroom

Just like the difference between watching a concert on TV and actually attending the concert, the emotional and sensory difference of watching a lecture online and actually being in the room may be measurable.

There are certain circumstances where virtual is the best you can get. For example taking a virtual excursion through the Powerhouse Museum, and asking the curator about the Enigma machine as he describes it's purpose and function. Much more viable than loading the class on a plane!

But as a learning experience I would argue that it's more memorable and valuable to actually be in the Museum, speaking face-to-face with the curator, and seeing the Enigma in real-space.

After teaching an HSC course via a virtual classroom for two years, virtual may be the best-effort when circumstances prevent real-world interaction; but when possible, real-world experience provides better sensory and memory learning.

laurenmacewen.com/category/socialmedia/

Social media

My understanding of the purpose of social media in education is to improve student engagement; to promote shared experiences. I have seen how shared experiences such as in-class debates, performances, brainstorming sessions, and group projects have helped students explore personal qualities in a safe environment which they may have never attempted otherwise.

I've run classroom blogs and forums, and these can engage students (particularly the quiet/shy); but I think a teacher understands the needs of the class far better via direct contact; when you can "see the whites of their eyes".

In general, the "social" classroom (particularly for high-school students), is less about engagement of ideas, and more about discussion of things (e.g. cars), or people (e.g. celebrities).

And, due to the Dunning-Kruger effect, students can not be expected to evaluate their own learning needs, or that of their peers. Consequently, they are unlikely to independently commit time and resources in order to focus on the details and conceptual applications of a new idea; and therefore never acquire deep knowledge or understanding.

In fact, social media may inhibit or distract from real discussions about the core concepts.

Neuroplasticity

Deep Knowledge

Having an expert mentor to guide you through a field of study is essential.

Deep knowledge and understanding in any subject requires focused time and energy:

1. to establish links to previous knowledge
2. to explain, comprehend, and reinforce concepts
3. to examine conceptual application in familiar and unfamiliar settings

The expert mentor can guide students through the concepts, and peers may contribute additional linking material, but if the social media conversation does not contribute to the depth of knowledge, it might distract and/or detract from the train of thought, drawing focus away from the subject, and disengaging the neural pathways that are required for deep knowledge.

Summary

I believe the best learning environment is with an expert mentor (and maybe some curious peers). Students can interact in real-time, grow as people, and grow in knowledge and understanding, without the filter and delay of intermediary technology. Virtual classrooms and social media are great substitutes if you can't engage in real-world activities due to distance or other circumstances; but they are only substitutes.

Online learning, virtual classrooms, and social media might be best-effort pedagogy, but not best-practice pedagogy. There's nothing like seeing the band perform live.

Abrv: The Shortening

Old-school text-messaging led to the abbreviation of language. 4 eg u can read this :-)

But some common technology terminology is still spoken in long-form. And when mainstream media highlight a website, they sometimes use a lot of syllables. For example; telling folks to link to this website would sound like:

• h-t-t-p-co-lon-for-ward-slash-for-ward-slash-dou-ble-u-dou-ble-u-dou-ble-u-dou-ble-u-dot-blog-ger-dot-com

29 syllables; most of them protocol; only 4 of them (14%) are site specific.

Proposal

So, I propose a verbal shortening for some common web words:

• http = hittip
• www = dubtrip
• foward-slash = frash

Audibly this website then becomes:

• hit-tip-co-lon-frash-frash-dub-trip-dot-blog-ger-dot-com

13 syllables; halving the spoken wordage.

Other tech terms could also be shortened:

• back-slash = blash
• hash-tag = tash
• IPv4 = IP4 (we don't refer to Windows v8 or Mac iOS vX)
• IPv6 = IP6

Every syllable counts! (Save time = save energy)

Thumbs Up

frash and blash are already listed in Urban Dictionary; but I've added these technology terms as alternate meanings. Feel free to give them thumbs up (no login required).

Ideal Search: Don't Forget to ask "Why?"

Ben Gomes (Google Fellow) posted a video on 28-Nov-2011 entitled: The evolution of search in six minutes.

In it Amit Singhal (Google Fellow) describes his ideal Google (from 5:30). He describes a search engine that returns answers to complex questions such as "what is the best time for me to sow seeds in India given that monsoon was early this year."

Amit doesn't provide a sample response, but it might be something like:

June-24

Providing the answer to a complex question needs to have the option "Why" or "Proof" or "References". If the question is misinterpreted, or the analysis is incorrect, or the response is in an unexpected format, Amit may lose a season of crop.

The sample response imparts knowledge, but it does not impart wisdom or understanding. An option to prove the answer, to question why it is so, to help people understand how that response was selected, might impart  both wisdom and understanding.

In Google's philosophy, they state core principles which guide their actions. Core principle 6 highlights: You can make money without doing evil.

• Google money comes from ad hits. So here's the paradox. Amit wants to sow seeds. He asks Google (1 page hit). Google gives a response without proof. Amit plants and things grow. He trusts Google.
• Next year the monsoon is early. Without understanding, Amit may choose to consult Google again (2 page hits). If he has understanding though he may wisely deduce the knowledge himself, which does not result in a use of Google, or the ads they display.

So is it in Google's interest to impart knowledge, but NOT impart wisdom. Is that "doing evil"? I think so. It reminded me of the filter bubble.

This paradox only arises as the complexity of the questions increases, and the interpretation and analysis of data and information frays.

And I think it is resolved by Google telling me the simple answer to a complex question, but then allowing me to choose "Why", or ask for "Proof". Something like:

June-24 Proof

That would increase knowledge, understanding, wisdom, and user confidence. And it might be "doing good".