On limiting learning and impairing comprehension with mobile technologies

I’d guess there aren’t too many educators who are unaware of the research suggesting that using marijuana or drinking alcohol may limit learning outcomes.  Using marijuana can impair short term memory and concentration and blood alcohol content (BAC) readings between 0.09 and 0.25% are associated with impaired memory and comprehension.

The ways in which alcohol and drug use can limit learning and comprehension are common knowledge amongst educators.   Any proposal to introduce marijuana and or alcohol for student use at school is likely to be rejected by governments, parents, educators or students.

The research that suggests reading from a screen is different from reading from print resources seems less well known. 

The ways in which reading from a screen can limit learning and comprehension is not common knowledge for governments, parents, educators, students or sales representatives.  Any caveat over readability issues and the betrayal of learning outcomes is largely ignored.

Educators have instead focused their attention on the research that suggests the personal use of mobile devices is on the rise, and on the growing resource of educational resources available for students to access on mobile devices.  Refer Horizon 2011 Report pdf

For example, notable New Zealand e-learning  conferences like ULearn and Learning at School   widely cite the future trendiness and ubiquity of mobile technologies - I have yet to nudge up against a keynote speaker who references readability issues when reading online.

Indeed it is the ubiquitous nature of mobile technologies that provides the rationale behind many educational proposals to increase student access to mobile devices. At the start of the school year in NZ the edu Twitter stream was awash with primary school teachers announcing the arrival of class sets of mobile devices (IPads and iPods) for student use in schools.

In embracing ubiquity as a rationale for implementation we neglect to ask about the stuff that matters most – learning outcomes.    

How many discussions around the introduction of mobile technologies to primary schools sees BOT, principals and senior management, educators, parents, students and sales representatives discussing the implications for student learning outcomes before the decision is made to purchase and introduce a mobile screen?  

Neil Postman alerted us to the importance of looking at what is enhanced and what is betrayed when we adopt technological solutions a long time ago – check out his essay on the five things we need to know about technological change.

So why aren’t we more curious about how learning outcomes might be betrayed by the use of mobile technologies?

Why don’t we look for the research findings around learning outcomes when students read from a desktop screen or from a mobile device and how these might compare with reading from print?

Anne Mangen’s 2008 exploration into reading with new technologies asks the question that more of us should be exploring as we introduce mobile technologies into classrooms. 

How does digital technology change the way we read?

You can access her thinking here in  Hypertext fiction reading: haptics and immersion Journal of Research in Reading, Volume 31, Issue 4, 2008, pp 404–419 pdf

Do we neglect to look at the learning outcomes because of the din from the advertising and media narratives? Or are we naively seduced by the e-marketeers?

“We approach our technologies through a battery of advertising and media narratives; it is hard to think above the din.” Turkle, Sherry. (Ed.). The inner history of devices. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008. p4

For whatever the reason we cannot ignore that print reading is different from screen reading – and Dr Jacob Nielsen’s  research into web usability is the perfect place for curious educators to find out why

Exploring the research around readability issues leads me to raise many questions about the introduction of mobile technologies for primary and secondary students with varying levels of literacy.

For example

What does it mean for primary and secondary students using mobile technologies in schools if a quick exploration of the research on reader usability shows that;

1. Text comprehension drops when we read on mobile devices.  The ability to comprehend complex web content drops by more than half if adults are asked to do this on an iPhone sized screen.

Research using a Cloze test shows that comprehension scores for adults reading complex web content on an iPhone-sized screen is 48% comprehension scores obtained when reading from a desktop monitor.   

Singh, R. I., Sumeeth, M., & Miller, J. (2011). Evaluating the Readability of Privacy Policies in Mobile Environments. International Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction (IJMHCI), 3(1), 55-78. doi:10.4018/jmhci.2011010104

If we assume that this research can be generalised to primary and secondary students we can ask

How will the readability issues of online texts on mobile technologies with smaller screen sizes – reduced comprehension -  affect the learning outcomes of students?

2.  Reading text (long-form) is slower on tablets (iPad, Kindle) than reading print text for adults (with at least high school levels of literacy).

Research on reading speeds (July 2010) suggests that reading on paper is between 10% to 30% faster than reading online. (For recent reserach try Jakob Nielsen  and from the past - try Kurniawan, S., and P Zaphiris (2001) Reading Online or on Paper: Which is Faster? In Proceedings of the 9 th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction.)

If we assume that this research can be generalised to primary and secondary students we can ask …

How will the readability issues of online texts on mobile technologies - reduced reading speeds – affect the learning outcomes of students?

3.  Adults with low literacy levels show markedly different reading behaviours when reading on the screen than high literacy users.  

Research conducted for Pizer describes how adults with low literacy levels “plow text rather than scan it, and they miss page elements due to a narrower field of view”.  Jacob Nielsen 2005 

The most notable difference between lower- and higher-literacy users is that lower-literacy users can't understand a text by glancing at it. They must read word for word and often spend considerable time trying to understand multi-syllabic words.Lower-literacy users focus exclusively on each word and slowly move their eyes across each line of text. In other words, they "plow" the text, line by line. This gives them a narrow field of view and they therefore miss objects outside the main flow of the text they're reading. Unlike higher-literacy users, lower-literacy users don't scan text. As a result, for example, they can't quickly glance at a list of navigation options to select the one they want. They must read each word in each option carefully. Their only other choice is to completely skip over large amounts of information, which they often do when things become too complicated. Lower-literacy users tend to satisfice -- accept something as "good enough" -- based on very little information because digging deeper requires too much reading, which is both challenging and time consuming. As soon as text becomes too dense, lower-literacy users start skipping, usually looking for the next link. In doing so, they often overlook important information. In addition, having to scroll breaks lower-literacy users' visual concentration because they can't use scanning to find the place they left off. Finally, search creates problems for lower-literacy users for two reasons. First, they often have difficulty spelling the query terms. Second, they have difficulty processing search results, which typically show weird, out-of-context snippets of text. As a result, lower-literacy users often simply pick the first hit on the list, even if it's not the most appropriate for their needs.

Nielsen provides some interesting webpage usability metrics comparing low literacy and high literacy outcomes for success rate (whether people could perform the task), time needed to complete tasks and user satisfaction (subjective)

Success rate	46 %	68 %
Time needed	22.3 minutes	14.3 minutes
User satisfaction	3.3	3.7

If we assume that this research can be generalised to primary and secondary students we can ask

How will the readability issues of online texts on mobile technologies affect the learning outcomes of students with low literacy?

How will the time needed to complete tasks by students with low literacy be affected by the introduction of mobile technologies?

I was interested to see that although adult low literacy readers took significantly longer to complete the tasks and had a significantly lower success rate – they self-rated their satisfaction at similar levels to adult high literacy users.

This research on low literacy adults learning outcomes when reading from the web align well with the outcomes recorded in Keryn Pratt’s research on primary students learning outcomes when searching online.  As Pratt explains – internet searching is done a lot in schools – and students are confident even optimistic about how well they search.

One of the most common uses of information and communication technology (ICT) in schools is using the Internet for research (see Becker, 1999; Lai & Pratt, 2003; Lai, Pratt & Trewern, 2001; Smerdon et al., 2000), yet only limited information is available regarding children’s Internet searching behaviour (Kuiper, Volman & Terwel, 2005). What is clear from the research that has been done is that children are generally not very successful in doing this ( Bilal, 2000; Schacter, Chung & Dorr, 1998), and that they use only limited search strategies (Bilal, 2000; 2001; 2002; Large & Beheshti 2000; Shacter et al 1998; Wallace & Kuperman, 1997). A review by Hsieh-Yee (2001) of children and adults’ search behaviour found that:

Children could interact with the Internet; they did not search systematically; they preferred browsing; and they had difficulty typing search terms, formulating search statements and judging the quality of Web pages. However, all the children felt confident about their Web searches (e.g. Kafai & Bates, 1997; Large et al 1999; Schacter et al., 1998) (p. 172).  

From Children’s Internet searching: Where do they go wrong? Keryn Pratt University of Otago CINZS Vol 21 No 1 2009 

4.  Children are not very good at doing internet research.

Although the usefulness of mobile technologies is often framed in terms of the ease of access to information – anywhere, anytime etc -  Pratt’s research with NZ students confirms that of many others – students may appear, confident, connected and engaged but they do not get good learning outcomes when researching online.

Pratt describes how Year 4 and Year 8 students in Dunedin schools did not get good learning outcomes when using the internet to search for information (both well-defined and ill-defined searching).  One of the problems seems to lie in their inability to comprehend (think critically about) the content they access.

In line with previous research, students did not perform particularly well on these searching tasks. However, examination of the results shows that it was not the mechanics of searching that seemed to be the problem. All but one student at either year level had navigated to a page containing the information for which they were looking (either a website they visited or a results page for one of their searches), which suggests they were able to identify appropriate search terms. Instead, the problem these students had was identifying the correct information within the site. This would seem to fit Lazonder’s (2000) model, which divided searching into two stages: locating the site and locating the information. However, many of the students did have trouble with locating the site, albeit not with the mechanics, but rather with the identification of it as the correct site. Children’s Internet Searching: Where do they go wrong 

If we assume that this research can be generalised to other primary and secondary students we can ask

How will the learning outcomes of students be affected when they are encouraged to use mobile technologies for researching and reading content online?

It all makes me wonder why we do not look out for the ways that mobile technologies might undermine and compromise student learning outcomes before we rush to adopt them. 

What is our professional responsibility in looking for strengths and weaknesses when introducing a screen reading technology that can limiting learning outcomes?

It is hard to imagine a future when home-school communication might read like this …

Dear Parents,

We are determined to take education at [insert school name here] truly into the 21^st century. We want to reinvent our school to meet the needs of the 21^st century and we need your help to shift a few paradigms.

Select one of the following to insert

1.  We’d like your approval to introduce a technology to classrooms that research shows will slow the rate at which high literacy students will be able to read and comprehend text.

2.  We need your help to fund the introduction of a technology that research shows will most likely compromise and limit learning outcomes for low literacy students at our school BUT will leave all students feeling optimistic and confident about their learning outcomes.

3.  We can offer special placement options for your student to learn in a digital classroom where they can have ready access to the internet for researching content – something research shows will result in naff learning outcomes in the locating relevant information bit and the finding the important ideas bit. 

We want [insert name of school her] to be bold. We want [insert name of school her] to break the mould.  We want to be flexible, creative, challenging, and complex.  We need mobile technologies to be all these things for your children. 

Regards  ….   

Comments

[florence lyons]

Hi
everytime I read what you write or see you in a conference, you are very inspiring. It is not about the tool, it is about learning. It is funny how teachers are very happy with their new "toys" without thinking about the learning. thank you very much for such a brilliant post

[Leigh Blackall]

In 2002 I was exposed to Microsoft funded research that found that reading comprehension dropped by as much as 70% when done on screen. While screen resolution, and perhaps some people's abilities, have since developed some, I'd certainly expect not much improvement. Back then I didn't have a blog or a bookmarking tool, so I've lost the reference, and can't seem to find it. I know I have referred to it somewhere, but a quick search only reveals 2 roughly close posts. Your post brings me closer, thanks.

I wonder if you want to join an informal group attempting to write a critique on "ubiquitous learning". At the moment we're gathering readings around the general section headings, and new sections if we think of it. Soon we'll each adopt a section to write up more, and target an outlet... eventually we might each folk it for our own needs, or see it through to the end together. I hope you'l join us. AT the very least, I've added a link to this post.

[Leigh Blackall]

folk = fork

[Nick]

What a great post and wonderfully supported by research and literature. This should be the catalyst for many robust professional discussions throughout our schools and more globally. I have no argument with the postion you have taken in terms of the relationship between screen size and reading comprehension and speed but to write of mobile technologies on this basis is a little premature.

Firstly we would need to consider what the mobile devices are being used for and what the purpose behind schools and students using them is in their learning. From my perspective, the primary reason is not for reading. Mobile devices are more than just a screen. With built in cameras, video cameras, voice recorders and gps to name a few of the features available, mobile devices can provide more technological capability, accessability and connectedness to the learner. How these devices are used within a learning context should be questioned, if teachers are integrating these into traditional forms of learning and text heavy, the problem lies in the approach not the technology.

Making the assumption that the research findings transcends to our students may also be a bit misleading. To take a quote from Understanding the Digital Generation: keynote perspective http://www.committedsardine.com/

At our core, we are inherently visual learners. It’s only natural for our students to be more inclined to process images than text. Their brains are simply designed that way.
And because the digital generation thinks graphically, this research goes on to show that the eyes of digital learners move in a completely different way than the eyes of digital immigrants when it comes to scanning a page or searching for information.

A great debate and one we need to continue.

[Artichoke]

Thanks for your comment Nick, I am certain the various readings will provoke discussion about the purposeful use of mobile technologies in primary and secondary schools and that has to be a good thing.

However, I must strongly disagree with your counter argument referencing digital natives, visual learners, and by implication a reduced need for (or replacement of) text for meaning making. With the greatest respect - I am not a committed sardine, I am not an uncommitted sardine – I reject the sardine.

I reject the usefulness of the label “digital native”. I do not believe that the gross-demographic exists or that it is even useful to imagine that it might in this context. Looking at what students “are” is dodgy territory at the best of times and this descriptor is superficial and easily refuted – thus dodgier than many others.

I think that bold claims like “digital natives are visual learners and thus need to learn through exposure to images over text” are irresponsible and damaging. I hate sitting in an audience where these ideas are presented as fact.

I do not accept that learning styles exist in a way that informs pedagogy. I blogged about this several times in 2005 Sadly regardless of how many times the research refuting this idea is shared – teachers continue believe that they do and that this should inform their pedagogy.

Nowadays I simply refer teachers to Daniel Willingham’s page when they come back from a conference keynote or PD course where the whole “digital natives need to learn visually” thing has been broadcast. I think Tess included some video of Dr Willingham unpacking the myths of learning styles and their use in schools on the ictpd online site last year.

Willingham helps us clarify

• …. children do differ in their abilities with different modalities, but teaching the child in his best modality doesn't affect his educational achievement. What does matter is whether the child is taught in the content's best modality. All students learn more when content drives the choice of modality.
  

If you want more recent research on this check out these papers

Clark, R.C. (2010). Evidence-Based Training Methods: A Guide for Training Professionals. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.
Ketter, P. (2010). Evidence-Based Training Methods: Toward a Professional Level of Practice. T+D, 64(4), 54-58.

I much prefer the thinking of Prof Henry Jenkins when it comes to media education and digital literacies – his blog Confessions of an ACA-Fan is worthy of reading on a regular basis – and this White Paper is a fantastic read in terms of avoiding the rhetoric and keeping your eye on what students need to learn in the 21st century.

You might also be interested in reading his position on the participatory nature of the new media literacies - it neatly captures where we are going wrong with digital or e portfolios - something I know you are quite keen on.

I have pasted an extract from the White Paper that captures my position on where the visual literacies sit – but I recommend the whole paper as a provocative and thoughtful read

• A definition of twenty-first century literacy offered by the New Media Consortium (2005) is “the set of abilities and skills where aural, visual, and digital literacy overlap. These include the ability to understand the power of images and sounds, to recognize and use that power, to manipulate and transform digital media, to distribute them pervasively, and to easily adapt them to new forms” (p. 8).We would modify this definition in two ways. First, textual literacy remains a central skill in the twenty-first century. Before students can engage with the new participatory culture, they must be able to read and write. Youth must expand their required competencies, not push aside old skills to make room for the new. Second, new media literacies should be considered a social skill.

  New media literacies include the traditional literacy that evolved with print culture as well as the newer forms of literacy within mass and digital media. Much writing about twenty-first century literacies seems to assume that communicating through visual, digital, or audiovisual media will displace reading and writing. We fundamentally disagree.

  Before students can engage with the new participatory culture, they must be able to read and write. Just as the emergence of written language changed oral traditions and the emergence of printed texts changed our relationship to written language, the emergence of new digital modes of expression changes our relationship to printed texts. In some ways, as researchers such as Black (2005) and Henry Jenkins (2006a) have argued, the new digital cultures provide support systems to
  help youth improve their core competencies as readers and writers. They may provide opportunities, for example, through blogs or live journals, for young people to receive feedback on their writing and to gain experience in communicating with a larger public, experiences that might once have been restricted to student journalists. Even traditional literacies must change to reflect the media change taking place.Youth must expand their required competencies, not push aside old skills to make room for the new.

  Beyond core literacy, students need research skills. Among other things, they need to know how to access books and articles through a library; to take notes on and integrate secondary sources; to assess the reliability of data; to read maps and charts; to make sense of scientific visualizations; to grasp what kinds of information are being conveyed by various systems of representation; to distinguish between fact and fiction, fact and opinion; to construct arguments and marshal evidence. If anything, these traditional skills assume even greater importance as students venture beyond collections that have been screened by librarians and into the more open space of the web. Some of these skills have traditionally been taught by librarians who, in the modern era, are reconceptualizing their role less as curators of bounded collection and more as information facilitators who can help users find what they need, online or off, and can cultivate good strategies for searching material.

  Students also need to develop technical skills.They need to know how to log on, to search, to use various programs, to focus a camera, to edit footage, to do some basic programming and so forth.Yet, to reduce the new media literacies to technical skills would be a mistake on the order of confusing penmanship with composition. Because the technologies are undergoing such rapid change, it is probably impossible to codify which technologies or techniques students must know.
  As media literacy advocates have claimed during the past several decades, students also must acquire a basic understanding of the ways media representations structure our perceptions of the world; the economic and cultural contexts within which mass media is produced and circulated;the motives and goals that shape the media they consume; and alternative practices that operate outside the commercial mainstream. Such groups have long called for schools to foster a critical understanding of media as one of the most powerful social, economic, political, and cultural institutions of our era. What we are calling here the new media literacies should be
  taken as an expansion of, rather than a substitution for, the mass media literacies.

  Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century
  Henry Jenkins, Director of the Comparative Media Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology published this white paper that explores new frameworks and models for media literacy. Pages 21 and 22

[Jonathan Nalder]

Love the depth of thinking and challenge to readily-accepted norms here. Some counter-thoughts:
- what good teacher would ever have reading that requires comprehension occur on a 3.5 inch screen?
- therefore, choose the tool for the task - paper (or e-ink/ high res screen) for long form, small/primarily visual apps for other things.
- do the studies compare paper to e-ink/ retina-class screens that are much closer to the contrast of paper?
- is it the higher contrast that marks paper as better for comprehension? Its not enough to say its better - what aspect makes it so?

ta!

[Artichoke]

Thanks Florence –
I have just driven half way across Auckland to get a replacement dishwasher after the cost of a repair of the old model exceeded the replace tilt point –I should have taken Postmans 5 things and discussed them with the residents off the corridor before I decided to purchase another dishwasher – we are going to lose the conversations and confidences shared when washing dishes with others - learning outcome in both content shared and participatory behaviours modelled – and the replacement is going to create time for individual rather than collective family activity -

I would be interested to unpack this further – needless to say the occupants off the corridor are simply delighted that the replacement technology will arrive tomorrow instead of on Monday –

We are all made vulnerable by technology – adopting each day “ways of doing stuff” without thinking about Postman’s five things

• And so, these are my five ideas about technological change. First, that we always pay a price for technology; the greater the technology, the greater the price. Second, that there are always winners and losers, and that the winners always try to persuade the losers that they are really winners. Third, that there is embedded in every great technology an epistemological, political or social prejudice. Sometimes that bias is greatly to our advantage. Sometimes it is not. The printing press annihilated the oral tradition; telegraphy annihilated space; television has humiliated the word; the computer, perhaps, will degrade community life. And so on. Fourth, technological change is not additive; it is ecological, which means, it changes everything and is, therefore, too important to be left entirely in the hands of Bill Gates. And fifth, technology tends to become mythic; that is, perceived as part of the natural order of things, and therefore tends to control more of our lives than is good for us.
  

[Artichoke]

Hi Jonathan - like the counters

These arguments need to be more carefully nuanced – the way you see in an academic research paper rather than the large brush strokes of a blog post

Still I guess that I’d argue that all reading requires comprehension – that context is important here – making meaning from a text label or annotation on an image on a 3.5 inch screen may be high stakes comprehension activity for a student with entry level literacy. In terms of visual apps perhaps doing see>think>wonder stuff with an image may compromise comprehension if the student has to scroll or pinch gesture the image to see detail.

I don’t know about your “good teacher” argument – is often made wrt purposeful use – e.g. IWBs etc but it doesn’t address the fact that even if there is such a thing as “a good teacher” who could counter this effect of reading through a small screen the technological product is distributed to all teachers indiscriminately.

And I don’t know about the readability studies – it is not something I ever hear educators talking about – (your e-ink retina class screens for example) and I have only just started browsing the web on readability issues on screens – which seems to be driven by a desire to improve web page design/utility so that we can get a marketing message – it gets very tight – some focuses on the font and typography – others on the readability levels of content etc.

I am hoping I might get some links to relevant research that helps us develop better questions as educators – so that our decision making is based on evidence based claims.

[Artichoke]

Hi Leigh - thanks for the comment - the links - and the invite - I like the ubiquitous learning framework - it sits close to what I care about - and I would be dead chuffed to join you - my contribution must be erratic - much like my blogging nowadays - reflecting the unevenness of the work load in the day job - but I'd enjoy the opportunity

[botts]

arti

i have concerns over the concept of research and internet research especially. doesn't the fact that students struggle to correctly identify sources of information on the internet suggest that they would also have the same problems when dealing with, for instance, a large library of text materials? are the skill sets for searching and identifying sources of information not the same for electronic and text mediums?

surely the issue here is the inherent inability of young(er) people to think beyond the concrete and so therefore struggle to identify abstract terms for searching and then recognise that same abstractness in the sorces they may (or may not) select.

[Nick]

I also do not support the notion of 'digital natives' nor am I a committed sardine, more just an interested one swimming in and out of oceans and currents and underwater environments, nibbling on bits and pieces as I go...

My main point really is similar to Jonathan's below, "what good teacher would ever have reading that requires comprehension occur on a 3.5 inch screen?" and why aren't they building on the strengths of the device rather than the compounding the weaknesses you have clearly pointed out.

The other sardine concepts about reading in F shapes, the colour of text and backgrounds is all interesting but still does not avoid the issue of screen size. Certainly adds to the professional discussion in the staffroom though!

Re your thoughts about learning styles, these views are also supported in,

Laurilard, D. (2002). What students bring to learning.

&

Mayes, J. T. & de Freitas, S. (2004). Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models.

which may be of interest.

[Artichoke]

I agree botts -

I was at a BTG Cluster lead teacher day recently when one of the teachers described our e-learning research expectations for primary/intermediate age students as akin to encouraging students to stand at the door of the library and shout "any one here know anything about "sustainability"?".

Even with Dewey decimal classification, file catalogue cards, search strategies, indices and librarians many students would struggle to make sense of what they could locate in books throughout the library. Pratt's research with Dunedin students affirms this with both types of searching. [as an aside I was quite taken with how Jakob Nielsen's low literacy adult plowing approach could explain the results that Pratt describes with school children]

And yet ... the ease with which we can "google" something leads us to imagine students can "just look things up" so we argue that giving them access to a technological device (of any screen size) for doing this "looking upping" with its portability any time anywher stuff e etc will enhance rather than betray learning outcomes.

When you keep your eye firmly on the learning outcome - the silliness of some of ways we try to use technologies in schools - (or the claims we make for them )is revealed

[Artichoke]

Thanks for the sardine update Nick - and the readings - all that nibbling underwater makes me wonder how you feel about pilchards -

If you have an affection for oily fish you might enjoy Mad Aunt Bernards Tortoise Poetry

Keep an eye out for Captain Pilchard near you, and if he stops, give him a decent cuppa. None of that weak crap where the tea bag just meets the water. He's also partial to garlic prawns if you fancy chucking some on. Go on, you know you want to....

[Alexander Hayes]

Greetings,

I'm taken with your firm approach to learning and what affects teaching conversely. What strikes me in this article you've written is the morbid fear that many of us imbue when it comes down to the distilled effects that our interaction with the networked grid is having upon humanity as a whole.

Our fascination with the digital prosthetic and the commodification of access to learning through these mobile nodes.

Kurzweil predicts a point at which humanity will inexorably reach a point of singularity - where the distinctions between technology and human are no longer separate, rather we realise an immortal state of being at one with the network.

I invite your views on Kurweil's notions - http://goo.gl/o8ilU

[Artichoke]

Apologies Nick - I got so excited linking to Mad Aunt Bernards Tortoise Poetry that I neglected to answer your question - re "what good teacher would ever have reading that requires comprehension occur on a 3.5 inch screen?" - if you cast your mind back a little you will realise that you already know the answer to this one award winning teachers do

[Artichoke]

Hi Alex,
Your observation on my firmness coupled with an invitation to share my views on the singularity makes me feel a little (or a lot) like a preserved in formalin version of Paul the Octopus.

I fear I must disappoint - I would observe in cephalopodian(?) style that my reading and thinking about the singularity remains at the surface (shallow)much like my thinking about mobile technologies - I am swayed by Sheldon

• Sheldon: At best I have 60 years left. 60 only gets me to here. I need to get here.

  Leonard: What’s there?

  Sheldon: The earliest estimate of the Singularity, when man will be able to transfer his consciousness into machines and achieve immortality.

  Leonard: So, you’re upset about missing out on becoming some sort of freakish, self-aware robot…

  Sheldon: By this much!

  Leonard: Tough break. You want eggs?

  Sheldon: You don’t get it, Leonard. I’m going to miss so much: the Unified Field Theory, Cold Fusion, the dogopus…

  Leonard: What’s a dogopus?

  Sheldon: A hybrid dog and octopus — man’s best underwater friend.

  Leonard: Is somebody working on that?

  Sheldon: I was going to. I planned on giving it to myself for my 300th birthday.

but I quite like the observations in this post

[discount teaching resources Mary]

Thanks for sharing the information. There is a to read Arti...
Will definitely come more often and spread the word.
Thanks once again.

[John]

interesting... and these studies don't even take into account the distractions that come into play with internet, smart phone, and other screen-based research.

[jobs for international students]

I had been reading a few of the articles right here but everyone provide great information. I was exposed to Microsoft funded research that found that reading comprehension dropped by as much as 70% when done on screen. Mobile devices are more than just a screen. With built in cameras, video cameras, voice recorders and gps to name a few of the features available, mobile devices can provide more technological capability, accessability and connectedness to the learner. How these devices are used within a learning context should be questioned, if teachers are integrating these into traditional forms of learning and text heavy, the problem lies in the approach not the technology. The other sardine concepts about reading in F shapes, the colour of text and backgrounds is all interesting but still does not avoid the issue of screen size. Certainly adds to the professional discussion in the staffroom though! Thank for sharing this information.

[Ricky]

Awesome article, too bad it was bad news, but we can make it good news now that we know what we know from it. I wonder if you have ever heard of the CIA program called ARTICHOKE. It was a program focused on mind control and hypnosis (Really). You can find out information on it by going to the CIA website.

[Tutoring Services]

Interesting data you got here. Technology has really been a huge part of students' life theses days. Imagine during our days, we don't even have this privilege.

[B. Goode]

Hi,

I agree that reading comprehension depreciates when texting or using digital devices because abreviation, slang and shorthand if used, does not help with solidifying or strengthening reading skills. In addition, I also concur that reading speed will become slower for some people if they are not accustomed to using digital devices than if turning the actual pages of a book.

Thank you,
BG

[B. Goode]

Hi,

I agree that reading comprehension depreciates when texting and using digital devices. When using abbreviations, slang or shorthand it does not strengthen reading skills. In addition, I also concur that reading speed will become slower for people who are not accustomed to using digital devices than turning the pages of a book.

Thank You,
BG

[Deccansoft]

Getting things done is not always what is most important. There is value in allowing others to learn, even if the task is not accomplished as quickly, efficiently or effectively

[Asp Dotnet]

interesting...Technology has really been a huge part of students' life theses days. Imagine during our days, we don't even have this privilege.
Besides the noble art of getting things done, there is the noble art of leaving things undone. The wisdom of life consists in the elimination of non-essentials.