In a widely discussed 2008 Atlantic Monthly article, Nicholas Carr asked, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”. His answer describes a faltering ability to concentrate and the suspicion that the Internet is a key contributor. “My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it, in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in a sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.” Our current students belong to a generation which has been growing up with ubiquitous access to online information and are often referred to as “digital natives” or the “Google generation.” Many claims have been made that this generation process information differently (e.g. The Shallows by N. Carr) going so far as to assert that excessive online “browsing” results in anatomical and physiological changes in the brain (1,2). While we could join the discussion which laments about the perceived or real loss of sustained attention among the members of this generation; or about the inability of many of our students to point out the building on campus which houses the library; or our students’ Facebook obsession; we might easily fall victim to the same fallacy as earlier generation did. Many of our ancestors have resisted the introduction new technologies ranging from the introduction of trains which were supposed to kill all horses to the invention of TV which was perceived as the end of radio. “Intellectual technologies,” have always been vehemently criticized: Socrates thought that the introduction of writing would substitute the knowledge people used to carry inside their heads (3); or the easy availability of books through the arrival of Gutenberg’s printing press would lead to intellectual laziness, making men “less studious” and weakening their minds (4). Instead we should embrace such intellectual technologies as they can enhance our understanding of the world, “consider how maps and clocks have altered our relation to space and time, developing in us a more abstract sense of the measurement and order of both” (5). We, as dental educators, should initiate a productive discourse about how we might need to adjust our teaching style. How do we modulate the relationship of technology, teaching and the generation of our students? How we deliver information is not just a passive act of transmission–media supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought (6).

Food for thoughts….

CU

Heiko

1) Small G, Vorgan G.  iBrain:  Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind.  HarperCollins, New York, 2008.

2) Small GW, Moody TD, Siddarth P, Bookheimer SY.  Your brain on Google:  Patterns of cerebral activation during Internet searching.  American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 2009;17:116

3) Plato’s Phaedrus

4) Italian humanist Hieronimo Squarciafico

5) The Shallows by N. Carr

6) Media theorist Marshall McLuhan

Hello. I am starting my first DIOC blog entry mainly as a result of communicating with Heiko  recently on measurement issues in dental education. Heiko wrote in ADEA Faculty Development Listserve: “While I do not want to digress too much from faculty development, I would like to add that the one problem we often overlook is the fact that what we define as learning outcomes is not entirely “on target.” While most of us think of dental education as “education,” it is much closer to “training” as we are all working in professional schools whose mission is to produce competent dental practitioners.  While a great dental education goes a long way on the path to becoming a successful dental practitioner, we need to be careful to think of them as exactly the same.“

In general I agree with Heiko’s careful dissection on the issue regarding measuring the outcomes of dental schools. However, I am curious to learn more what your and other dental educators’ takes are, specifically on why most dental educators, including Heiko, think dental schools are more training than educating.

Here is a bit background on why this question emerged. My first degree was physics. 13 years ago, at the end of my graduate study in Curriculum and Instruction, I started working in the field of teacher education and teacher professional development. At that time, I was warned not to use “training” as a word when interacting with teachers and future teachers. It was not obvious to me then why such a word can lead to difficulty and sometimes resentment. Over the years, I have realized how changing the word “training” to “preparation” has helped me reframe my own work with teachers and future teachers. It also helped me to rethink what outcomes I would like to achieve in my work with teachers. The belief of “I know it better than the people I work with” seems to dissipate the moment I took the position that I am there to help prepare future teachers and to enhance current teaching practice. Additionally, “training” seems to be more or less associated with rule-based skills. Yet, teaching is not composed of a set of rule-based technical skills. One can not buy a book on “teaching for dummies” and expect to become an effective teacher overnight. Along with Lee Shuman (2004) and many others, I believe that teaching requires one to develop practical wisdom, of which is nearly un-trainable due to its context-specific nature and practical wisdom is not rule-based, as Aristotle pointed out long ago. I admit that this belief leads to the acceptance (Schwartz & Sharpe, 2011) of how difficult it is to measure the outcomes of teacher preparation programs. For teachers are only getting better the more they practice (if they are reflective).

So, now, let’s switch our focus back to dental education. From the perspective of a dental educator, what difference will it make for you to shift your belief and action from “training” future dentists to “educating”?

Reference:

Shulman, L. S.  (2004).  The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach.  S. Wilson (Ed.)  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Schwartz, B. & Sharpe, K. (2011). Practical wisdom: the right way to do the right thing. Riverhead Trade.

Hi everybody,
I am planning to periodically post topics related to the use (and misuse) of instructional technology in dental education. Here the first installment:

I just read a thought-provoking article “Hyper and Deep Attention: The Generational Divide in Cognitive Modes” by Katherine Hayles which discusses the generational shift in cognitive styles that poses challenges to education at all levels (published here, full text available here).
Dr. Hayles discusses the dichotomy between deep attention, concentrating on a single object for long periods ignoring outside stimuli, and hyper attention, switching focus rapidly among different tasks. The latter is characterized by preferring multiple information streams, seeking a high level of stimulation, and having a low tolerance for boredom.
While many people, in my age group anyway, would immediately argue that deep attention is better, “it comes at the price of environmental alertness and flexibility of response.” Dr. Hayles argues that “Hyper attention excels at negotiating rapidly changing environments in which multiple foci compete for attention, …”  However, in our traditional educational environment “hyper attention [is] regarded as defective behavior.” The problem we are facing is, according to Hayles, the clash between the “expectations of educators, who are trained in deep attention […] and the preferred cognitive mode of young people.”
Her research also shows that while the “mean [of the population] moves toward hyper attention rather than deep attention, compensatory tactics are employed to retain the benefits of deep attention through the artificial means of chemical intervention in cortical functioning,” such as through cortical stimulants (e.g. Ritalin). Her article elaborates on research about synaptogenesis which is altered when children grow up in media-rich environment–reminding me of The Shallows by Nicholas Carr.
One of her key arguments is that “A case can be made that hyper attention is more adaptive than deep attention for many situations in contemporary developed societies.” However, I would note that the public thinks differently when it comes to the work of health care providers, see: New York Times: As Doctors Use More Devices, Potential for Distraction Grows, and AHRQ recently reported about a “multitasking mishap” in their Morbidity & Mortality Rounds on the Web.
CODA, the accrediting body for all US dental schools, states in its standards that the “[u]se of technology in dental education programs can support learning in different ways, including self-directed, distance and asynchronous learning.”

What challenges are we facing when these students enter our dental schools? Do we want to foster hyper attention, building on their acquired predisposition, or do we want to change their cognitive style to adopt a style of deep attention which is more suitable for a health care provider? Actually, is deep attention really more suitable for health care providers who must interact with often multiple computers and devices as well as need to adjust to the rapid pace of many patient encounters per day?
Do we need to prepare our dental educators for these hyper-attention learners? At the University of Southern California, researchers “explore new pedagogical models that provide greater stimulation than the typical classroom […] 14 large screens span the walls, providing display space for […] participants [who] search the Web for appropriate content to display on the screens while a speaker is making a presentation.” Think about dental educators: do you think they would enjoy teaching under such circumstances?
Or, maybe the solution can be found in what Atul Gawande recently wrote in The New Yorker regarding the promises of technology:  “What ultimately makes the difference is how well people use technology. We have devoted disastrously little attention to fostering those abilities.”
Thanks,
Heiko, looking forward to your comments and thoughts

Associate Dean, Office of Faculty Development and Information Management
Associate Professor, Dental Public Health, Center for Dental Informatics
School of Dental Medicine, University of Pittsburgh
http://researchgateway.ctsi.pitt.edu/dvprofiles/hspallek