Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Drafting the Architecture for a Digital IQ


Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

Drafting the Architecture for a Digital IQ

  1. 1. Drafting the Architecture for a Digital IQ Society for Information Technologies & Teacher Education (SITE 2007) Mechelle M. De Craene M.Ed. John P. Cuthell Ph.D. MirandaNet Academy USA MirandaNet Academy UK  
  2. 2. ICT is truly the learner's helm of the 21st Century! <ul><li>Indeed, as Piaget asserted, &quot;The current state of knowledge is a movement in history, changing just as rapidly as the state of knowledge in the past has ever changed, and in many instances more rapidly. </li></ul>
  3. 3. Intelligence <ul><li>Carl Sagan (1977) points out in his book, The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence that </li></ul><ul><li>“ Human beings have in the most recent few tenths of a percent of existence, invented not only extragenetic knowledge, but also extrasomatic knowledge, of which writing is the most notable example…” </li></ul>
  4. 4. <ul><li>… that is, until now, with ICT. </li></ul><ul><li>Whether or not you agree with Sagan, there's no doubt that knowledge acquisition and transmission are very different from yesteryear. </li></ul>
  5. 5. Cyberspace <ul><li>Cyberspace now is the incubator of a plethora of extrasomatic knowledge (i.e. information shared outside our bodies) that is &quot;googlizable&quot; and deliverable with a click, crossing both time and distance as we know it. </li></ul>
  6. 6. Mind the Interface <ul><li>Furthermore, 21st Century learning is not just about the individual learner's mind, but rather the interface of the learner's mind and ICT, which houses global information given from multiple perspectives. </li></ul>
  7. 7. Let’s consider intelligence <ul><li>In his theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI) Howard Gardner describes multiple intelligences as: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Linguistic </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Logical Mathematical </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Spatial </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Kinesthetic </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Musical </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Interpersonal </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Intrapersonal </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Naturalist. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  8. 8. <ul><li>But what about Digital Intelligence? </li></ul>
  9. 9. First: What is intelligence? <ul><li>Piaget (1963) suggested that “Intelligence is assimilation to the extent that it incorporates all the given data of experience within its framework… There can be no doubt either, that mental life is also accommodation to the environment. Assimilation can never be pure because by incorporating new elements into its earlier schema the intelligence constantly modifies the latter in order to adjust them to new elements.” </li></ul>
  10. 10. Now: How may that definition relate to a digital world? <ul><li>We are just beginning to find out… </li></ul><ul><li>This synopsis is meant to be a thought-piece to encourage reflective research on digital intelligence. </li></ul>
  11. 11. Laying the foundation… <ul><li>Digital intelligence can include a wide range of technologies, but none is more evident to schools than computers. </li></ul>
  12. 12. Access <ul><li>The main factor in digital intelligence is of course access. Just as musical intelligence depends on access to music instruments, the same is true with digital media. For example, one can only guess the musical abilities of a person who has never played at instrument.   </li></ul>
  13. 13. Spearman’s g <ul><li>The second factor is general intelligence, known as Spearman’s g. </li></ul>
  14. 14. Developmental Psychology <ul><li>Developmental Psychology needs to be taken into consideration. </li></ul><ul><li>What are the developmental patterns? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the developmental differences? </li></ul>
  15. 15. <ul><li>Bruner identified three main stages of development </li></ul><ul><li>1. preoperational, 2. concrete, and 3. formal </li></ul><ul><li>The very nature of our schools with primary, secondary, and tertiary education is based on this praxis (Cuthell, 2002). </li></ul><ul><li>The progression of the stages is not necessarily age dependent. </li></ul>Child Development and Digital Media
  16. 16. CD Theory <ul><li>The concept of Cybernetic Developmental Theory (De Craene & Cuthell, 2006) uses developmental psychology (e.g. Piaget and Brunner) as a cornerstone to identify developmental differences in how children interact with technology. </li></ul><ul><li>This provides a lens through which teachers can understand how children of all ages relate to ICT. </li></ul>
  17. 17. Intelligence & Age <ul><li>Horn & Cattell (1967) describe age differences related to fluid and crystallized intelligences. </li></ul><ul><li>Fluid intelligence is the individual's ability to think and act quickly, and flexibility to solve novel problems. </li></ul><ul><li>Crystallized intelligence stems from learning and acculturation. Therefore, Fluid intelligence decreases with age and crystallized increases. </li></ul>
  18. 18. An Example of Fluid & Crystal: <ul><li>One can see how this relates to technology acquisition skills.Just think of how hard it is for many adults who convert from PC to Mac, or vise versa. </li></ul><ul><li>Even students at an early age develop a preference, much like left and right handedness. This is evident when a child comes from a PC home and starts first grade at a Mac school. Teachers can tell right away. However, many children show an easier transition of learning a Mac or PC than adults usually exhibit. </li></ul>
  19. 19. Fluid & Crystalized <ul><li>Hence, as we age our experiences create pathways that become familiar and crystalized…less fluid…until we consciously make an effort to learn a new pathway. </li></ul>
  20. 20. Access, Ability & Affect <ul><li>Think about access. The later one relates with a computer the more different types of intelligence are at play. Let’s say that a child doesn’t have access until middle school. She may have already decided that she is afraid to try the computer because she feels that she may not be good at it compare with her techie school mates. </li></ul><ul><li>Will she explore the computer with the same fluidity and element of play that she may have when she were younger? Or will her crystalized fears impede her learning? </li></ul>
  21. 21. Something to think about… <ul><li>There are many scenarios related to fluid and crystalized intelligence that can relate with digital intelligence … perhaps digital intelligence can be further broken down into these subcategories … the research is just beginning. </li></ul>
  22. 22. What about quantifying? <ul><li>To take the notion of digital intelligence further. Let's wonder how would we measure a Digital IQ. </li></ul><ul><li>We could start with a 100 mark as the median of typical development of digital skills and schemas of children at a particular age range. Therefore, a bell curve may evolve. </li></ul>
  23. 23. Is there a formula? <ul><li>Could it be that…? </li></ul><ul><li>a + g + t = digital intelligence </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>a = access </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>g = Spearman’s g </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>t = talent </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  24. 24. Why would we want to quantify it? <ul><li>…or should we quantify it? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the pros and cons of quantifying a digital IQ? </li></ul>
  25. 25. Pros & Cons: Can you think of any? <ul><li>Pro: Quantifiable scores can help developmental psychologists to see trends in the way children relate with technology. </li></ul><ul><li>Con: Scores could be misinterpreted within an educational setting as a cap to abilities, rather than a as tool for intervention. </li></ul><ul><li>Nurture, rather than Nature … (not to mention socio-economic factors) </li></ul>
  26. 26. Diversity must be considered <ul><li>Diversity must be considered when we are looking at digital intelligence. Therefore, looking at digital intelligence through the paradigm of developmental psychology and/or anthropologically is more advantageous than looking at it through the lens of the pedagogy. </li></ul><ul><li>We need to consider culture and sociological factors including how children with various special needs interact with technology. </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore, an international ethnographic study of digital intelligence would be one model to consider. </li></ul>
  27. 27. Next: <ul><li>Let’s dispel a few myths… </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>That may skew the perceptions of digital intelligence </li></ul></ul></ul>
  28. 28. The Digital Native Myth <ul><li>First, Marc Prensky’s Digital Natives is a myth that needs to be dispelled. In short, not all children are digitally savvy, and not all “immigrants” are immigrants. For example, some Gen Xers grew up with a computer in the family and/or at school and were affectionately called the Microkids. Some even became teachers. </li></ul><ul><li>Martin Owen, Director of Learning at FutureLab (UK) refutes the myth quite well. </li></ul>
  29. 29. The Flynn Myth <ul><li>Secondly, the commonly cited Flynn Effect, in which IQ scores are seen as rising from one generation to another, has been questioned by Flynn himself (2006). Yet, many in pedagogy unquestioningly accept the implications of the Flynn Effect. </li></ul><ul><li>In other words, IQ may not on the rise, as previously thought. In general, we may not be any smarter than our grandparents were. </li></ul>
  30. 30. The Literacy Myth <ul><li>Except for reading literacy, which is accepted as clearly defined and quantifiable, all other forms of literacy can be considered subjective. </li></ul><ul><li>This is especially true of information literacy. </li></ul>
  31. 31. Digital Literacy is Subjective <ul><li>“ The term &quot;digital literacy&quot; is quite slippery, ever-changing with technology upgrades. Moreover, &quot;literacy&quot; in itself has become as ubiquitous as the term &quot;postmodernism&quot;, leaving it to the subjective interpretation of teachers from one year to the next. Therefore, a consistent framework would be helpful to teachers.” </li></ul><ul><li>(De Craene & Cuthell, 2006). </li></ul>
  32. 32. We need a developmental framework <ul><li>The philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1798) believed that </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;Childhood has its own way of seeing, thinking, and feeling, and there is nothing more foolish than the attempt to put ours in their place.&quot; </li></ul><ul><li>The authors of this article agree, and contend that seeking how children see, think, and feel about technology is fundamentally important and a worthy endeavor in the efforts to help bridge the digital divide.” (De Craene & Cuthell, 2006) </li></ul>
  33. 33. Educational Implications: <ul><li>Myths must be dispelled </li></ul><ul><li>Early access is key </li></ul><ul><li>Diversity needs to be considered </li></ul><ul><li>Teachers need a consistent framework to understand how children relate with technology </li></ul><ul><li>The Digital Divide exists and teachers can work to help bridge the gap </li></ul><ul><li>Digital intelligence needs to be considered as another aspect of intelligence </li></ul>
  34. 34. Global Implications <ul><li>The Digital Divide exists and teachers can work to help bridge the gap. </li></ul><ul><li>International collaboration is essential for understanding digital intelligence and for teachers to best meet the needs of their students. </li></ul>
  35. 35. Thank you! <ul><li>If you’d like to collaborate, please feel free to email us at: </li></ul><ul><li>cdtheoryresearch @ gmail .com </li></ul><ul><li>Thank you for your time - and feedback. </li></ul><ul><li>cc: the contents of this presentation are under a creative commons share alike license </li></ul>