After analyzing several real-life cases and thinking over the philosophy of distributed cognition, I still find myself torn on my answer to the question: Does technology make us smarter? On one hand, I have seen how technology can greatly aid the cognitive process of students through improving efficiency and providing new ways to cognitively approach content. On the other hand, I have seen how technology can be thrown at students for the sake of technology which can cause a decrease in student’s intellectual processing. Based on these thoughts, I believe my final conclusion is that this question can only be answered on an individual class basis, and over a great amount of time. Primarily, I think that technology has the potential to make us smarter if effectively taught and utilized in the classroom. However, when this does not occur I think it can actually become a greater creator of deficiency. So, one must look at individual cases to see if the technology is improving cognition. Also, the entire concept of smarter is unqualifiable. No one has a proper definition of what it means to be smart, and even the working definition of that word is constantly changing. As discussed in the first lesson observation, no one knows what importance grammar skills will hold in twenty years from now. The definition of smart and expectations for students are constantly shifting as the world changes. So, in order to see if technology truly makes us smarter, one has to find out how to define smarter in terms of the present society, and study an individual or set of individua for a vast amount of time. While there is not a definitive answer to this question present in these essays, I believe the potential for greatness in technology is there. It’s just a matter of how we use it.

Bibliography

Martin, L. (2012). Connection, Translation, Off-Loading, and Monitoring: A Framework for Characterizing the Pedagogical Functions of Educational Technologies. Technology, Knowledge & Learning, 17(3), 87-107.

Salomon, G. & Perkins, D. (2005) Do Technologies Make Us Smarter? Intellectual Amplification With, Of and Through Technology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, New Jersey.

The final lesson discussed actually does not include any use of what would be thought of as technology in the 21^st century. Rather, it has to do with paper, pencils, and symbols. This lesson was conducted in the eighth-grade class at Monticello Middle School. As stated previously, this class has access to technology such as chrome books and cell phones. However, this lesson was completed the ‘old fashioned way’ with paper and pencil. It was a guided annotation process in which the teacher modeled how to annotate an article based on an annotation symbols key. Students would use the key to annotate the article. When they read something interesting, they would put an explanation point, something confusing, a question mark, and so on. This process is one which helps students understand and engage in their reading, without having to write out long sentences about their thoughts. Now, it is important to note that in Salomon & Perkins they highlight that “in our framework, symbol systems count as technologies” (2002). In thinking of this annotation symbol system as a technology, one is able to see through the effects with technology framework. This system operates within this framework as the symbol guide significantly aids the efficiency of the reading process, but it does not greatly alter the reading process. By using the annotation key, the students are freed up from “distractions of lower-level cognitive functions” which would be the thought process of how to take notes on a reading; and focus more on the reading itself (Solomon & Perkins, 2002). In doing this, the annotation key acts as a tool for the student to use which will help improve their performance of the task at hand.

This occurs through translation process between teacher and annotation guide, and annotation guide and students. This is two-fold translation as the teacher first translates significant concerns when reading into a symbolic system. In this sense, the symbolic system is not the system translating it is the teacher (Martin, 2012). However, because the teacher never explicitly points out which parts of the article the students were reading to annotate, the teacher does not translate the entire process. Here, the symbol system acts as in the translating process between the student and the article. For, when a student marks a symbol next to a chunk of the article, the symbol is translating that information in the article as significant. When looking back and reading the article again, the student is able to look at their annotations to find the most important or interesting aspects of the reading without needing to reread the entire piece. Through this process of translation, the annotation guide acts in the effects with framework, and ultimately aids in the cognition of the student. As Solomon & Perkins note: “technologies that afford substantial support of complex cognitive processing- make people smarter in the sense of enabling them to perform smarter” (2002). This is the case as students are able to unpack complex language through their annotations, which will ultimately allow them to have a greater understanding of the work itself.

The next lesson observed also included the use of google documents but in a very different method. This lesson was done in a ninth grade English classroom at St. Martin’s De Porres High School. The class also is heavily integrated with technology as the students are each given an individual chrome book for the school year. The teacher has a desktop with a projector and smart board as well. In this lesson, students were analyzing a short story on paper in class. They were given time to record thoughts about the theme of the text and annotate evidence accordingly. Following this time, the teacher shared a google document with the entire class. On this document were a series of questions the students were expected to answer based on their reading of the short story. After answering the questions, themselves, they were expected to comment of their classmates’ answers and have an online conversation about the theme of the story. In this activity, the google document is functioning as a connector for all of the students and the teacher to collaborate. In its most basic form, the document is creating “a shared communication channel” that differs from traditional oral communication (Martin, 2012). This also functions as a monitoring through the teacher’s involvement in the document. The teacher also engaged in the commentary of students’ responses and pointed out strong points, while challenging improvement on weak ones. As Martin notes, “The feedback can also be used by a third party, such as a teacher, to assess a student’s progress” (2012). Through this, the teacher is not only collaborating with the student but monitoring progress through the very document itself. The teacher is even able to access the history of the document to see who wrote what if students neglect to add their name to comments. In this particular class, this activity acted as a formative assessment to understand student’s progress in understanding theme and supporting that understanding with textual evidence.

            This activity functioned almost as an online Socratic seminar. Students were engaged in conversations with one another regarding the text without speaking to one another. While there were definitely some attention issues, for the majority of the class students were engaged in the lesson. I think one of the reasons this happened was because the teacher scaffolded and explained the activity and expectations very well. So, through this the technology actually transforms the learning experience of the students. The fact that conversations were occurring completely online fundamentally changed the discussion at the moment. As Solomon & Perkins point out, “the use of new technologies qualitatively and sometimes quite profoundly reshapes activity systems rather than just augmenting them” (2005). This is happening within this lesson as the essence of the conversations are fundamentally altered with the use of the technologies. Although it cannot be said that the entire class’ concepts of communication are fundamentally altered for the entire school year and discussions will be handled like this for the rest of the year, it was significantly altered in the moment. To see a group of students vigorously typing away for the most part silently only affirms this. The computers are not merely acting as aids in this conversation but as the vessels of communication. The dialogue is not simply enhanced but fundamentally differed.

With the theory of distributed cognition’s basic definitions covered, the following posts will discuss real-life implications of these processes and functions within observed lessons. While the three lessons discussed will vary in the types of technologies and interactions used, overall they will exemplify some aspects of this theory.

First, I will discuss a lesson taught in an eighth grade English classroom at Monticello Middle School. This class has access to technology through a class set of chrome books, projector and interactive board, overview camera, and most students having cell phones. Even when the teacher does not incorporate the laptops or projector, almost the entire class can be understood through distributed cognition as interaction with multiple systems occurs constantly. However, this specific lesson discussed actually includes the use of the chrome books. The students were assigned an argumentative essay as a summative assessment for a unit regarding the short story “A Tell-Tale Heart” by Edgar Allen Poe. This essay was completed entirely online through the google documents feature. All of the chrome books are fitted with a popular grammar-checking program known as Grammarly. As students write their essay, they are able to see poor grammatical structures and misspelled words highlighted by Grammarly and then automatically have those errors changed. Through this function, Grammarly is off-loading the task of grammar so the student focuses solely on the content of the paper. This very function is highlighted in the Martin reading as offloading can occur through “the use of an autocorrect function in a word-processor while composing text” (2012). This creates an environment in which grammar is not focused on so the student can focus solely on their thoughts behind the essay.

For many, this function will be seen as aiding in the effects of technology framework which is “convenient but would not seem in any dramatic way to enhance cognitive function” (Salomon & Perkins, 2005). For, in using the Grammarly function the cognitive process of writing the essay is not greatly altered, merely expediated as less time is focused on grammar. However, I would argue that this function can be observed through an effect of framework. As a consequence of having a word-processor auto-correct grammar and spelling mistakes, students may become de-skilled in this area of learning. As it is stated, effects of concerns positive or negative effects which “persist without the technology in hand, after a period of using it” (Solomon & Perkins, 2005). If grammatical errors are constantly being autocorrected, and this area of English education offloaded by technology, student’s awareness of grammatical rules will become limited over time. While it is impossible to say whether or not this is occurring within the classroom I have observed this lesson in due to my lack of continued time there, the possibility certainly exists. One must also consider how important grammar rules and spelling will be as education moves towards an even more technologically integrated classroom throughout the country. If students are always going to write on computers, what’s the purpose of teaching them grammar? These thoughts must be considered to effectively understand how one will teach in the future. Overall, this use of technology may not enhance student cognition. Rather it is utilized as a measure of convenience which may end up being detrimental to the student’s grammatical abilities.

The following series of posts will attempt to answer the question: Does technology make us smarter? Following the lead of known scholars of educational technology, these posts will focus on the theory of distributed cognition and its relevance in the educational classroom. In order to do so, one must first discuss the background philosophy of distributed cognition and relevant definitions within the philosophy. This will be the concern of the first post.

Distributed cognition is a theory which states that intelligence is not formed solely in the individual mind, but “distributed across multiple systems, both human and artificial” (Martin, 2012). Through this theory of intelligence, one is able to explain the interrelationship between person and person, person and tool, person and technology, and so on. It allows one to think about the complex nature of thinking and learning. For, the individual human mind is never really able to be studied in isolation. Rather, it must be studied in its connections with the world around. With this in mind, there have been multiple studies and theories regarding how interactions with tools, signs, and technologies can impact thinking and learning (Salomon & Perkins, 2005). In order to investigate this thought, Salomon and Perkins created a three-way framework. This framework consists of effects with technology, effects of technology, and effects through technology.

Effects with technology refer to “how the use of technology often enhances intellectual performance”. Effects of technology is “how using a technology may leave cognitive residues that enhance performance even without the technology”. And effects through technology speaks of “how technology sometimes does not just enhance performance but fundamentally reorganizes it” (Solomon & Perkins, 2005).  These all offer a type of relationship between the mind and tool (technology) and how it can affect cognition. When thinking of the long-term roles of technologies of the classroom these are extremely significant to keep in mind.

Another component of distributed cognition that must be covered here are the four pedagogical functions performed by technology in the educational field which Martin identifies. These four functions are: connection, translation, off-loading, and monitoring. These are all highlighted to support how distributed cognition theory supports the metaphor of learning as coordination. In this sense, learning is an organization of parts exchanged by one complex system to another. These functions serve as facilitators for this coordination process.

Connection is the most basic requirement for coordination as “it must be possible for information to pass between the systems…through shared connection to some sort of intermediary” (Martin, 2012). With this connection between the two systems, translation is possible as there is a “transformation of information from one representational system to another” (Martin, 2012). This allows for communication between the two systems to occur with a mutual understanding despite a difference in processing. Another function is offloading which “can be thought of as a change in the distribution of task and subtasks across systems” (Martin, 2012). This allows for less important, tedious tasks to be put on the technology while the cognitive focus of the student is of more priority. Finally, the last function is monitoring which refers to “assessing the quality of the coordination between systems and providing this information as feedback” (Martin, 2012). This ensures proper coordination amongst the different systems to enhance the cognitive development.

At Monticello Middle School each classroom is equipped with chrome book laptops. The cart is left in the classroom at all times. Students access the chrome books through their school login account. Once students are logged in, the computers are equipped with access to the internet and most of the work they do on their laptop is through various google apps. This includes google classroom, google slides, and google documents. Students turn in major assignments such as projects and essays through google classroom, which acts as a hub for all major assignments. Google slides and documents are utilized to collaborate with other students on group projects or write an essay as an individual. In the class I observed, students mainly used their laptops when working on projects or essays. This was not as frequent as their work on paper or in collaborative groups were.

Using google apps rather than microsoft ones such as word is significant because google allows students to access their work no matter what computer they are working on. When students do not take the laptops home that they work on, this is important because they are still able to access their work outside the classroom if they have to. This is facilitating student learning because they have access to work no matter what. Through this, students various access to technology becomes less of a problem.

My cooperating teacher utilizes a number of technologies in her classroom. The main technology used is her laptop. As I stated in previous blogposts, the staff just switched from mac books to chrome books. My teacher has stated frustration with this as the new technology has been a very big adjustment. She also noted that some of her lesson plans were in google documents while some were on her old laptop. So, sorting through that has been difficult. Ms. Robinson uses Google apps just as her students. She has lesson plans in google document folders, lecture notes in google slides, and uses google classroom to display the due date and expectations for major assignments. Connected to the laptop is a smart board in which Ms. Robinson displays her google slides presentation. She used to have a clicker which allowed her to move about the classroom and change slides, however, with the new hardware her clicker no longer works. This has been very frustrating for her as she is no longer able to move throughout the class while lecturing but has to stay near her desk to change the slides.

The most significant software I have seen that facilitates teaching for Ms. Robinson is the use of goguardian. Gogaurdian is an online monitoring system where teachers can monitor the screens of all the students logged into laptops. This has helped Ms. Robinson keep students on task while working on their laptops. If students are on a different screen than what they are supposed to, the teacher has the ability to lock the screen and talk with the student. This is extremely important because it deals with the issue of how to keep students on task while using technology. This is a great aid because it allows the teacher to offer the space to learn with technology but not worry about lack of student focus.

People in Charge of Technology:

Media Specialist: Laura Lorek

Technology/Multimedia Specialist: Dianna Neal

Access to Technology:

Students I have been observing in my 8th grade english class at Monticello Middle School have access to chrome books at every class. The chrome books are kept in a laptop cart in the classroom at all times. The cart is designated to that classroom for the semester. From what I have seen and spoken with the students about, the laptops are in great condition and rarely offer any issues. These are fairly new laptops as the school recently changed school buildings and switched from mac books to chrome books along with the building change. These are not required for families to purchase, but the students also do not take the laptops home with them. They remain in the classroom at all times.

Firewall:

There was a limited opportunity for me to discuss firewall with my observing teacher and the media specialist at Monticello. However, based on my observations of the students with the laptops there does not seem to be a firewall. Students are able to access websites through google like Youtube, and other gaming websites. On their phones students are also able to access their social media apps like instagram and snapchat. So, based on these observations it seems like there is no firewall blocking certain websites as most firewalls block social media.

Who I Spoke With:

The main person I spoke with regarding this was my cooperating teacher, Mrs. Robinson. She spoke a lot about how she likes to incorporate technology into her classroom and how Monticello in general attempts to incorporate it throughout the school. As a 21st school, there is a great emphasis on building technological skills for the students. My cooperating teacher does this by utilizing google classroom, assigning technologically involved assignments such as online storyboards, etc. One thing that Mrs. Robinson also noted was that currently she was having a difficult time adjusting to a new computer system as she had previously had a mac and their school just switched to pc. Along with new computers came new smart boards which also took a long time to adjust to. However, overall Mrs. Robinson felt very supported by her school when it comes to technology. At Monticello Middle specifically, there are several media & technology specialists who assist teachers with their technological needs. Laura Lorek, the media specialist at Monticello acts as a 21st century librarian. She not only helps students with paper books but also monitors and helps students with their online library through INFO-Ohio. Also, throughout the district there is an entire Information Technology Department who’s coordinator is Christina Bauer, PHD. Their goal as a department is to assist all teachers and students towards a Prepare All Students for Success in A Global Economy (P.A.S.S.A.G.E.) vision in which students meet all technological skills necessary to succeed in the 21st century. Overall, CHUH School Districts and Monticello Middle greatly try to incorporate technology into the classroom and offer as many resources as possible to make that happen.

Story Board Script:

The Great Gatsby Historical Context

Title: A Historical Analysis of the Time Period of The Great Gatsby

Twenties music playing in the background

Voiceover: On April 10^th, 1925 F. Scott Fitzgerald published what would become his most successful novel The Great Gatsby.

Voiceover: Set in the Jazz Age of New York, the novel tells the story of Jay Gatsby, a self-made millionaire and his pursuit of Daisy Buchanan, a wealthy young woman he loved in his youth.

Voiceover: Along with its images of wealth, extravagant parties, lust & love. The novel is filled with a great amount of literary techniques that makes the text both a challenging, but accessible text.

Voiceover: For this reason, the novel has been placed in the literary canon of English education, being taught at thousands of schools throughout the United States.

Voiceover: In order to fully understand the themes of the novel, it is important to understand the historical context in which this novel was set.

Voiceover: The 1920s in the United States was referred to as “The Roaring Twenties” a time in which the economy was surging, there was mass consumerism, jazz ruled, the Harlem renaissance redefined culture, women’s place in society greatly altered and the prohibition challenged legal authority.

During the 1920s, many Americans had extra money to spend, and they spent it on consumer goods such as ready-to-wear clothes and home appliances like electric refrigerators. The most important consumer product of the 1920s was the automobile. Low prices and good credit made cars affordable luxuries at the beginning of the decade; by the end, they were practically necessities.

Jazz bands played at dance halls and radio stations carried their tunes to listeners across the nation. Some older people objected to jazz music’s “vulgarity” and “depravity” but many in the younger generation loved the freedom they felt on the dance floor.

In the early 1900s, a few middle-class black families moved to Harlem. Due to other forces, thousands of black families soon followed throughout the 1920s. This led to a sense of black pride in the Harlem area. Soon artists like Langston Hughes, Nora Zeale Hurson, Louis Armstrong, and others displayed the cultural pride of Harlem. This explosion of artistic and cultural creation was called the Harlem Renaissance.

During this time, there was a development of who was termed the flapper. A flapper was a young woman who wore shirt skirts, drank, smoked, and did other “unladylike actions”. Although most women weren’t flappers, the image of the flapper directly related to the decade. Aside from that figure, women finally earned the right to vote in 1920 and gained a more prominent role in society outside of the household.

In the 1920s the 18th amendment of the constitution was ratified, banning the sale of intoxicating liquors and soon every bar, saloon, and tavern in the US was shut down. This drove the liquor trade underground–now, people simply went to nominally illegal speakeasies instead of ordinary bars–where it was controlled by bootleggers, racketeers and other organized-crime figures.

All of this cultural change led to radical shifts in identity throughout the mass population.

Throughout the decade, massive parties, social roles shifted, cultural views were challenged, and rapid change occurred.

It wasn’t until 1929 when another drastic change occurred as the New York stock market crashed on October 29th and billions of dollars were lost in a single day. From that day forward, society went from a prosperous, consumerist state to the greatest economic depression of the United States.