engaging the digital learner: how growing up digital...
TRANSCRIPT
Engaging the Digital Learner: How Growing Up Digital Impacts Learning
Curtis L. Whitehair, MD, FAAPMRAssociate Medical Director, MedStar National Rehabilitation Network, Washington, DC
Program Director of MedStar GUH / MedStar NRH PM&R Residency Training Program, Washington, DC
Vice Chair for Education, Dept. of Rehabilitation Medicine, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC
Associate Professor of Clinical Rehabilitation Medicine, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC
Faculty & Course Director, Harvard Macy Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
AUR 63rd Annual Meeting
AMSER Lucy Squire and APDR/ACR Keynote Lecture
April, 15, 2015
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Disclosures
• I have no Industry Conflicts of Interest.
Contact
• Email: [email protected]
• Twitter: cwhitehair
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Have a question during this lecture?
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Objectives
• The goals of the session are to review current literature on education for those born in the digital age.
• Explore the generational and demographic differences between learners and teacher of today.
• Explore how the young digital age learners are processing information in the rapidly changing digital time.
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o&feature=player_detailpage
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Literature Search December 27, 2012
GoogleScholar ERIC(1966-12/27/12)
PubMed(22 million citations)
Ovid(1948-12/27/12)
Net Generation 3,600,000 108 66 68
Digital Native 715,000 49 302 4
Millennial Generation 6,340 83 23 23
Digital Native or Millennial Generation
or Net Generation
17,000 229 390 94
Digital Native or Millennial Generation
or Net Generation and Medical School
653 155 17 2
Digital Native or Millennial Generation
or Net Generation
and Graduate Medical Education
71 154 0 1
Digital Native or Millennial Generation
or Net Generation
And (Graduate Medical Education or
Residency)
51 154 1 2
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Marc Prensky - 2001
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
• Born after 1980 (by Prensky; others 1982)
• First generation to grow up with our “new technology”
• “Native speakers” of the digital language of
• Computers
• Videogames
• Digital music
• Video cams
• Cell phones
Digital Native
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGjADeXFVS0&feature=player_detailpage
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Common Digital Language
Abbreviations Emoticons
?4U I have a question for you :) Standard smile, just kidding
BTW By the way :( Sad, upset
CID Consider it done :-< Very sad
G2G Got to go ‘:-) One eyebrow raised
LOL Laugh out loud ;) Winking smile
OMG Oh my God :’-) Happy crying
TTYL Talk to you later :-D Laughter
YT? You there? %-( Confused
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Digital Native, before entering college
• > 250,000 emails
• 10,000 hours talking on cell phones
• 50% of teens send 50 or more text/day or 1,500/month
• 10,000 hours of playing video game
• 20,000 hours watching TV
• 500,000 commercials seen
• <9,000 hours attending K-12
• <5,000 hours reading books
“It is now clear that as a result of this ubiquitous environment and the sheer volume of
their interaction with it, today’s students think and process information fundamentally
differently from their predecessors.” Marc Prensky, 2001
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Teens (12-18) with mobile devices
Cell phone 78%
Smart phones 37%
http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/teens/devices/
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Source: http://mashable.com/2010/08/17/text-messaging-infographic/
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
August 27, 2012
13
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
- September 14, 2014
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/11095439/Ch
inese-city-paints-street-lane-for-mobile-phone-users.html
© Curtis L. Whitehair, MD, 2015
Among all 8 to 18-year-olds, amount of time spent with each medium in a typical day:
Children’s Media Use, By PlatformChildren’s Media Use, By Platform
HOURS
0
2
4
6
4:29
2:31
1:29
0:38 0:25
TV content Music/audio Computers Print Movies
1:13
Video games
10:45
Total media exposure
Note: Children may be engaged in more than one of these activities at the same time.
Source: Kaiser Family Foundation, Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds, 2010.
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Digital Native, before entering college
• > 250,000 emails
• 10,000 hours talking on cell phones
• 50% of teens send 50 or more text/day or 1,500/month
• 10,000 hours of playing video game
• 20,000 hours watching TV
• 500,000 commercials seen
• <9,000 hours attending K-12
• <5,000 hours reading books
“It is now clear that as a result of this ubiquitous environment and the sheer volume of
their interaction with it, today’s students think and process information fundamentally
differently from their predecessors.” Marc Prensky, 2001
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
“Different kinds of experiences lead to different brain
structures.” – Bruce D. Perry, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine
• Imaging studies show
– Blind people light up visual areas of the
brain when they learn Braille.
– Deaf people light up auditory cortex to
read sign language.
• Tokyo Denki University
– fMRI scanning of DN volunteers viewing emoticons :) activated
Right Inferior Frontal Gyrus (RIFG) – nonverbal communication.
Typically language is processed in Broca’s area (LIFG).
• Bookheimer and Moody, UCLA with fMRI, “savvy” vs “naïve”
– Reading activated the same location
– Google Search
• Savvy – left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
• Naïve – minimal to no activation
© Curtis L. Whitehair, MD, 2015
Eye Pattern “F”
Digital Native
Digital Immigranthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilq9qeyVjT0&feature=player_detailpage
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Digital Immigrant
• Anyone born before 1980-2
• Not born into the digital world, but later in life adopted
many or most aspects of new technology.
• Can speak the digital language but always retain their
“accent”.– Printing out an email
– Calling someone to see if the received an email or text
– Bring people into your office to see a screen rather than sending the
URL
– Printing out a document to edit rather than editing on the screen
• A language learned later in life goes into a different part of the brain.
• Digital Immigrants appear to have little appreciation for the NEW skills the Digital
Natives have perfected and practiced throughout the years.
• “It’s very serious, because the single biggest problem facing education today is that
our Digital Immigrant instructor, are struggling to teach a population that speaks
an entirely new language.” – Marc Prensky, 2001
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Generation – Mannheimian theory
• The relationship between social and historical environment
– The nature of time
– The relationship between biography and history
– Between personal and social change
– The mechanisms of social change
– Socio-psychological connections of language and knowledge
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Generational DifferencesCharacteristic GI Generation Silent Generation
(aka
“Traditionalist”)
Baby Boomers (aka
“Boomers”)
Generation X (aka
“Gen X”)
Millennials (aka
Gen Y”, “Net-Gen”
and “”Nexters”)
Birth Years 1900-1924 1925-1942 1943-1960 1961-1981 1982-2005
Current Age* >88 71-88 53-70 32-52 8-31
Defining events and
trends
Patriotism, Great
Depression, New
Deal, WWII
Post-WWI recovery
and prosperity, Cold
War
Prosperity, a TV in
every home,
Vietnam War, civil
rights movement,
assassinations
Women’s rights,
PCs, AIDS, latchkey
kids, single-parent
families
9/11 and terrorism,
patriotism,
multiculturalism,
Internet
General qualities of
member of the
generation
Loyal, stable, hard-
working, detail-
oriented, used to
hierarchical
authority
“Company Man”,
loyal to employers,
reluctant to buck
the system
Service-oriented,
driven, self-
centered,
judgmental of
differing views
Adaptable,
independent,
techno-literate, un-
intimidated by
authority, impatient,
disaffected
Optimistic,
community-
oriented,
multitasker, techno-
savvy, needs
structure and
supervision
Generational
archetype
Artists (Quite youth,
consensus-building
leadership)
Prophets (Coming-
of-age passion,
vision, values)
Nomads (Hell-
raising youth,
practical midlife
leadership; survival)
Heroes, (Collective
coming-of-age
triumphs,
community spirt)
Tables 1& 3 from: Generational Forecasting in Academic Medicine: A unique Method of Planning for Success in the Next Two Decades; Howell LP, Joad JP, Callahan
E, Servis G, Bonham A; Academic Medicine, Vol. 84, No. 8, August 2009
* Numbers update for presentation, not actual article data
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Helicopter/Hovering Parent
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/how-millennial-are-you/
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Differences in motives between Millennial
and Generation X medical Students
Nicole J Borges, R Stephen Manual, Carol L Elam and Bonnie J Jones
MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2010; 44: 570-576
• 426 medical students (97% response rate)
• Gen X = 229, matriculated 1995 & 1996
• Millennials = 197, matriculated 2003 & 2004
• Wrote a story after being shown two Thematic Appreciation Test (TAT)
cards.
• Stories scored for different aspects of motives: Achievement, Affiliation, and
Power
• Conclusion:
– Gen X scored higher on motive of Power
– Millennials scored higher on motives of Achievement and Affiliation.
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Borrero et al 2008
University of Pittsburgh
• Study of residents (average age 28) and faculty(average age 42) responding to 16 vignettes depicting lapses in professional behavior in physicians
• Rated scenarios as not a problem, minor, moderate, or severe problem
• 14/16 vignettes, wide variation in responses within each age group as to the severity of the lapse.
• For only two vignettes, significant differences between groups:– Abuse of power by resident over intern – residents said worse
– Resident signs out of potentially emergent patient situation to cross-cover without full alert to seriousness – faculty said worse
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
2008 Generational Attitudes Survey
Results of AAMC GSA/OSR groups:
• Survey sent to listservs for student affairs deans and medical student representatives to OSR from all US schools
– 466 responses from four generations (50% response rate)
– 16 = silent
– 138 = boomer
– 96 = Gen X
– 212 = Millennial
• Silent and Boomer groups are faculty
• Gen X and Millennials almost all students
Association of American Medical Colleges
Group on Student Affairs
Organization of Student Representatives
The Millennial Becomes a Physician
AAMC Annual Meeting
Friday, October 31, 2008
Caroline Haynes, MD, PhD
© Curtis L. Whitehair, MD, 2015
During my medical school
education, I attended lectures:
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Silent
Boom
Gen X
Millennial
All of the
time
Most of
the time
Some of
the time
Rarely or
when
required
© Curtis L. Whitehair, MD, 2015
When I didn’t attend a learning event, I
felt:
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Silent
Boom
Gen X
Millennial
Fine, it’s
my choiceOk, but may
have missed
something
Guilty or
afraid
© Curtis L. Whitehair, MD, 2015
What should determine whether or
not laptops can be used in class?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Silent
Boom
Gen X
Millennial
Presenter
preference
Class
content
requires
Presence
of patient
Should
always be
allowed
raw data
© Curtis L. Whitehair, MD, 2015
I tend to respect a person MOST
highly based on:
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Silent
Boom
Gen X
Millennial
Great
values is a
“good”
person
Personal
value to
me as a
teacher,
etc.
Professional
accomplishments
High rank or
title
© Curtis L. Whitehair, MD, 2015
I see being a physician as:
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Silent - MDs
Boom - MDs
Gen X
Millennial
A calling
that
directs
life
decisions
A way to
contribute
to the
world
Start of my
career,
other
endeavors
A type of
employment
© Curtis L. Whitehair, MD, 2015
homo sapiens digitalensis
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
http://www.pewinternet.org/Static-Pages/Trend-Data-(Adults)/Internet-Adoption.aspx http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/03/13/main-findings-5/
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
USA Internet Users’ DemographicsTotal Adults 87%
Men 87%
Women 86%
Race/ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 85%
African-American 81%
Hispanic (English-
speaking)
83%
Age
18-29 97%
30-49 93%
50-64 88%
65+ 57%
Source: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project Spring Tracking Survey, April 17 –
May 19, 2013. N= 2,252 adults . Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish and on
landline and cell phones. Margin of error is + 2.3%
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
USA Internet Users’ DemographicsHousehold Income per year
Less than $30,000 77%
$30,000 - $49,000 85%
$50,000 - $74,999 93%
$75,000+ 99%
Education attainment
Less than High School 59%*
High School grad or less 76%
Some College 91%
College+ 97%
Community type
Urban 88%
Suburban 87%
Rural 83%
Source: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project Spring Tracking Survey, January
9-12, 2014 N=1,006 . Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish and on landline and cell
phones. Margin of error is + 2.3%
* 2013 survey results
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Internet
42.3 % of World Population - 2014
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
300 year-old market in Indonesia.
Ian Jukes: Understanding the Digital Generation: Teaching and Learning in the New Digital Landscape.
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Social Network
65+ have tripled in the last four
years (from 13% in the spring of
2009 to 46% in 2013).
73% of Freshmen Undergraduates
in UK used social networking sites
to discuss coursework. -2008 JISC
72% Undergraduates use social
networks while working on
classroom assignments – Ministry
of Higher Education, Sultanate of
Oman. – 2013 IJAC
60% of Undergraduates in
Zimbabwe used social networking
sites to discuss educational topics
50% of Undergraduates in
Zimbabwe used social networking
sites to discuss specific school
work – 2013 IJCIT
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
364,586,260 FB Growth
from 2010-2012
October 4, 2012 – 1 billion
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Simulated map of Facebook Friends Connections
http://www.notcot.com/archives/2010/12/a-world-mapped-by-friends.php
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
http://www.socialnomics.net/2013/01/01/social-media-video-2013
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Learning Styles of the Digital Native
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Digital Natives prefer receiving information quickly and from multiple
sources that is considered by them, relevant, active and instantly useful.
Gather information through a multistep process :
• Graze
– all day on RSS news feeds on Facebook, wiki, twitter, favorite websites and blogs.
• Information finds them, they don’t need look for it.
• Important feature of grazing is context speed, accessibility and how well it is sorted.
– Collaborative Referencing
– Availability Just-in-time usually cell phones that or mobile devices
• Deep Dive
– into the trail it leads them once determined relevant and easy to process
• Hyperlinks
• Download Videos, podcast, etc.
• Feedback loop
– Digital Natives want to “talk back” to information
• Blogs, video blogs, micro blogs
Digital Immigrants usually prefer a slow and controlled release of
information from limited sources.
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Digital Natives multitask with parallel processing.
• 2005 KFF –approximately1/3 of young people report “most of the time” while doing home work– talk on cell phone
– instant Messaging
– watch TV
– listen to music
– surf web “for fun”
• 2006 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll – 1,650 teenagers while doing homework– 84% - listened to music
– 47% watched TV
– 21% 3 or more task at once
• “continuous partial attention”
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Multitasking while online– Grunwald, 2004
0 10080604020
Percentage
Base: Kids 13-17
Listen to radio while online
Watch TV while online
Talk on phone while online
Visit a site mentioned by someone on the phone
Send IM to person you’re talking to
Visit website seen on TV
Visit website heard on radio
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Hasn’t multitasking been around for a while?
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Digital Natives multitask with parallel processing.
• 2005 KFF –approximately1/3 of young people report “most of the time” while doing home work– talk on cell phone
– instant Messaging
– watch TV
– listen to music
– surf web “for fun”
• 2006 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll – 1,650 teenagers while doing homework– 84% - listened to music
– 47% watched TV
– 21% 3 or more task at once
• “continuous partial attention”
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Digital Natives prefer graphics, (pictures, sounds, color, and
video) over text.
• Study have show young people choose websites based on personal
preferences for graphics, color, design.– 5th graders ignored websites with more than one or two pages of text.
• Study by Briggs from UK: web surfers looking for information on
health spent ≤ 2 seconds on any particular website before moving
on to the next website.
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
late December 2010 into early January 2011
Relative difference was 75% and 42.7% for
Click-through-rate and Open rate respectively
of Graphic over Text-only
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Digital Natives are connected globally, 24/7.
• Internet allows world wide connections
• “The availability of just-in-time, highly relevant information,
often access on devices like cell phones and Sidekicks (or for
professionals, BlackBerries), which are located on our bodies at
all times, has also become crucial for economic survival in a
modern society.“- Palfrey & Gasser, Born Digital, pg 190
• US kids report spend twice as much time online than estimated
by parents – Norton Online Report 2009
• 83% of all US teenagers sleep with their cell phone next to their
beds – PEW 2010
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Digital Natives are connected globally, 24/7.
• Internet allows world wide connections
• “The availability of just-in-time, highly relevant information,
often access on devices like cell phones and Sidekicks (or for
professionals, BlackBerries), which are located on our bodies at
all times, has also become crucial for economic survival in a
modern society.“- Palfrey & Gasser, Born Digital, pg 190
• US kids report spend twice as much time online than estimated
by parents – Norton Online Report 2009
• 83% of all US teenagers sleep with their cell phone next to their
beds – PEW 2010
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Time August 27, 2012
54
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
- September 14, 2014
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/11095439/Ch
inese-city-paints-street-lane-for-mobile-phone-users.html
• Zhaopin.com polled 10,000 white collar workers
– 80% admit “severe addiction” to their phones
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Digital Natives prefer random access to hyperlinked multimedia.
Digital Immigrant Educators prefer linear, logical and sequential formats.
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Digital Natives prefer to start with group collaborations
• Educators prefer student
to work independently
before they network and
interact.
• WEB 2.0 - Content not
delivered to learners but
co-constructed with
them.
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Digital Natives prefer instant customized gratification.
• Internet shopping has provided a greater array
of product and services.
• They believe that abundance is their birthright.
– The Long Tail phenomena by Chris Anderson
• Infinite inventory not just best sellers with cheap distribution
• Consumers tend to distribute as widely as the choices
• Digital products are easily personalized.
– Example, Digital Native have more customized cell
phone ring tones than adults.
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
http://youtu.be/fXsMolLc7Do
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Cognitive Overload
• Brain can hold 5-9 (7± 2) items in Short-Term Memory– STM last 20 – 30 seconds
– Typical video games provide new Information, feedback and stimulus every 7 seconds
• For information to be relevant, important and useful, it needs to be processed
• Information IN is inversely proportional to Information Out. – Jones et al. Information Overload and the Message Dynamics of Online Interaction Spaces: A Theoretical Model and Empirical Exploration, Information System Research 15, no. 2 (June 2004); 194-210
– The compensatory mechanism is to avoid processing information
– Simpler, smaller messages or ending active participation
– Run the risk of narrow focused viewpoints and suboptimal decision making
• ADHD may not be a true diagnostic disorder, but rather delayed development of the fontal lobes or the brain’s new wiring adaptation
• Text, Tweets and Wall Post - A compensatory mechanism ?
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
• Physiological stress of digital overload:
• increased heart rate
• increased cortisol and adrenaline levels
• Migraines
• retarded reading skills
• reduced attention spans
• Restlessness
• Psychological effects:
• Stress
• Anxiety
• Depression
• low motivation
• Panic
Cognitive Overload
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
• 2006 - Stanford Univ., 18% college students pathological Internet users and 58% report excessive Internet use has disrupted studying, classroom attendance and lowered GPA.
• 2008 - iBrain, by Small & Vorgan– “An estimated 20% of this younger generation meets the clinical criteria for pathological Internet Use.”
• 2011 - Pediatrics 127: e319–329. 3034 3rd grade children in Singapore, the prevalence of pathological gaming was similar to that in other countries (∼9%).
• 2011- Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. Systematic review of 658 articles. 18 research studies met inclusion criteria. 8 reported prevalence estimates of US college student PIU; prevalence rates as high as 26.3%.
• 2014 - A random effects meta-analysis showed a global prevalence estimate of 6.0% (derived from 80 reports, including 89,281 participants from 31 nations across seven world regions.)
Cognitive Overload
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
2006:12 y/o male admitted to the first inpatient treatment program for computer addicts in London.
12 step programs are now available
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
The Great Debate
• Bennett S, Maton K, Kervin L. The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence; Brithish Journal of Educational Technology. 2008;39(5):775-786
– Kvavik, Caruso & Morgan 2004 – showed that a significant proportion of students had lower level skill than might be expected of digital natives.
– Kennedy et al 2006 – showed emerging technologies were not commonly used and identified potential difference.
– Downes 2002 – family dynamics and level of domestic affluence to be significant factor influencing children’s home computer use.
• Brown C, Czerniewicz L. Debunking the ‘digital native’: beyond digital apartheid, towards digital democracy; Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2010; 26:357-369
– Not a generation but an elite
– In South Africa there are groups of students who do not exist in the prevailing millennial discussion.
• Bennett S, Maton K. Beyond the ‘digital natives debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2010;26:321-331
– Green and Hannon 2007 – different user types with their own particular expertise
– Growing body of evidence refutes the simple notion of the ‘digital native’ and highlights the complexities of young people's technology experience
– “It is, we have argued, time to move beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate as it currently stands, and toward a more sophisticated, rational debate that can enable us to provide the education that you people deserve.”
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Born Digital – John Palfrey and Urs Gasser, 2010
• “There is a temptation among those who love technology to promote radical changes in the way we teach our students. … That instinct is wrong.
• We don't need to overhaul education to teach kids who are born digital.
• Learning will always have certain enduring qualities that have little or nothing to do with technology"
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Technology alone……
http://vimeo.com/62470169
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Harnessing the Power of Social Networks in Teaching & Learning; Alec Couros, PhD
June 5, 2009, University of Delaware
“Shift Happens”
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
2011 Horizon Report Key Trends
• People expect to be able to work, learn, and study whenever and wherever they want
• The world of work is increasingly collaborative, giving rise to reflection about the way student projects are structured
• The technologies we use are increasingly cloud-based, and our notions of IT support are decentralized
http://wp.nmc.org/horizon2011/
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Transform your teaching practice
Photo Credits Image Source. http://home.moravian.edu/students/d/stged01/
Take traditional pedagogy to web 2.0
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MDPhoto Credit: TypicalTeacherNetwork by courosa on Flickr. http://www.flickr.com/photos/courosa/344832659/in/set-72157615129270288/
Learning is increasingly LESS about this…
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MDPhoto Credit: Networked Teacher Diagram - Update by courosa on Flickr. http://www.flickr.com/photos/courosa/2922421696/in/set-72157615129270288/
… and increasingly MORE about this
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
A Tech-Happy Professor Reboots After Hearing His Teaching Advice Isn’t Working – The Chronicleof Higher Education, Feb 12, 2012
"They would just be inspired to use blogs and Twitter and technology, but the No. 1
thing that was missing from it was a sense of purpose.“ – Michael Wesch
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Concrete Experience
experiencing
Abstract Conceptualization
thinking
Active Experimentation
doingReflective Observation
reflecting
Kolb
Learning Cycle
© Curtis L. Whitehair, MD, 2015
© Curtis L. Whitehair, MD, 2015
Abstract Conceptualization
thinking
Active Experimentation
doingReflective Observation
reflecting
“iKolb”
Learning
Cycle
Concrete Experience
experiencing
Technology in Support of Learning
© Curtis L. Whitehair, MD, 2015
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Rethinking Education – Michael Wesch 2011EDUCUASE: The Tower and The Clock Higher Education in the Age of Cloud Computing –
Richard Katz
© 2015 Curtis L. Whitehair, MD
Thank You!
Questions?