There is an interesting article from a piece of Australian research into kids and how they interact with technology.

Basically it says that kids appear to want the latest piece of technology … nothing new there! But the report goes on to find that kids are a lot more tech savvy than we’d believe … I guess most teachers would say that that’s not new either.

The most important finding it would seem, at least as far as educationalists are concerned, is that kids want the same level of technology, sophistication and facilities as the kit being sold to their parents. Kids are well aware of when they are being offered some ‘dumbed down’ piece of kit. As the report says ‘ today’s kids are clearly tech-savvier than ever, and know when they’re being sold a kiddie version that isn’t as good as their mother’s, father’s or older sibling’s gadget. ‘

So it seems that we should avoid being patronising with regard to the technology we allow our kids to have. After all our kids grow up quickly but the technology grows even quicker and very son becomes obsolete, so why give our kids technology with limited functions whuch would only appear to make that tech have an even shorter life?

Related articles by Zemanta

• 7 New “Interesting Ways to Use” Resources (tbarrett.edublogs.org)
• Conversations #52 – Passion in Education (edtechtalk.com)
• Technology in schools (slideshare.net)
• 5 Fledgling “Interesting Ways” Presentations (edte.ch)

Possibly Related Posts:

• Using Interactive Whiteboards to Improve Achievement
• Learning Score
• 6 Ways ICT Can Improve Education
• A Hundred Ways to Show What They’ve Learned
• Handheld Learning Conference 2009

A few weeks ago I took part in an online discussion led by Stephen Heppell on the Vital website. Stephen Heppell is a very highkly regarded figure in the world of education and if you ever have a chance to listen to him speak or present, then I’d certainly suggest you do so. He is a speaker who inspires and provokes thought.

In the online discussion, Stephen asked why was it that ICT had not reduced the costs of education? Apart from Health and Education, ICT had been deployed and used to reduce the overhead costs or running costs of their users. I cannot speak for Health but I can for Education and I felt at first that this was an unfair question. After all, we started introducing technology into the classroom we did so not to reduce costs but to expand and improve the resources and experiences offered to learners. So to criticise us for not using ICT to reduce costs when that had never been our aim, did seem unfair.

Was it unfair, though?

A few days after the online discussion, I received in my inbox an email linking to this article about ICT for students with disabilities in developing countries . In this article it suggests that students need ICT partly because it is cheaper than training and paying for a teacher. The inference being that ICT is a cheaper resource than a teacher and one which, possibly, better addresses the need of the students.

This would be quite a contentious argument here in the UK. How many people, schools or local authorities would welcome replacing teachers with computers, even if it reduces the bill?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Schools must embrace technology (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Managing Change: Engaging The Teachers (ictineducation.org)
• #BETT2010 – Playful Learning (olliebray.typepad.com)

Possibly Related Posts:

• Learning Score
• Transforming Learning
• Comfortable Technology -Learning Transformation pt4
• Knowledge, Learning and Information – Learning Transformation pt2
• In the Dark – An Introduction to Learning Transformation

Can playing Tetris really alter your brain?

I came across this article on the Wired UK website. It claims that playing Tetris can alter the structure of the brain; which is quite a bold, one might even say, alarming claim.

It appears that researchers have used brain scans to illustrate that playing the simple computer game had distinct effects upon the brain. It would appear that some areas showed greater ‘efficiency’ and other areas showed the development of more grey matter.

Unfortunately, the article does not really tell us what parts of the brain were found to be more efficient nor which ones developed more grey matter (or indeed whether there was any cognitive improvement as a result of having more grey matter).

Cynically, you notice that the research was funded by ‘Tetris’ makers, so I guess they had an interest in promoting potential positive benefits of using their game. The research also seems to have studied only the brains of adolescent girls, why not boys? Had the researchers assumed that boys might already have played or been exposed to such games and, therefore, were less likely to show any benefit?

Cynicism aside, the research would tend to add weight to the view that playing games is not just a mindless activity or distraction from real thinking. It does tend to show that playing games can act as a mental stimulant. Which may also lend weight to the view that playing games can have a beneficial education effect. Stimulating the brain, relieving boredom have been known for a log time to be of benefit in learning. So maybe, playing games such as Tetris can be beneficial. YOu do have to put this against the addictive nature of some games, however, and ask at which point does the positiove benefit of mental stimulation give way to the time-wasted element of addiction?

Finally, the article makes a claim that playing Tetris could help offset the effects of old age; another bold claim which may or may not be the case.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Survey says: Tetris is good for your BRAIN! (destructoid.com)
• How I Got So Smart (themoderatevoice.com)
• Is the Label “Games Based Learning” Useful? (edte.ch)

Possibly Related Posts:

• Is this … the Worst iPhone App Ever?
• Retro Teaching
• Do we really need a New OS?
• Can Anyone tell me How they have Learned from Failure
• mobile browser test