LME 537-Blog 1: Technology & Cognitive Complexity
In Don’t Plan for Technology; Plan for Learning (2013), author Alan November explains his work to improve learning for students in an International School in Asia. November discusses how he has seen much change in the use of technology in schools, but not necessarily in the way that we use it in the classroom. Even with the addition of technology in schools, “By using the same script with new tools -- we shouldn’t expect any different results” (November, 2013). Using technology in the classroom can only benefit students if they are challenged and allowed freedom in their use of technology.
Technology is important in today’s society and education in order to meet the needs of the 21st century learner. Without students utilizing technology in schools, it is more difficult for them to be prepared and competitive in today’s work place. As November (2013) stated, “Every student needs a digital device, just as every student once needed a pencil and a notebook.” This is true when we look at making sure that students are progressing through school at a higher level. In Real-World Learning Framework (2015), Maxwell, Stobaugh, and Tassell review Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy is great detail. “There is a great emphasis in today’s classrooms on problem solving and open-ended challenges” (Maxwell et al., 2015). Without providing access to the digital world, students may lack the ability to problem solve at a higher level. There are similarities in the outcome of what November, Maxwell, Stobaugh, and Tassell believes to be important in education.
Maxwell et al. (2015) explains that there are five levels of cognitive complexity. These levels connect to the redefined levels of Bloom’s (1956) original taxonomy. The five levels of cognitive complexity are knowing, practicing, investigating, integrating, and specializing (Maxwell et al., 2015). The ultimate goal of cognitive complexity is for students to be able to generate questions, think, and produce a task or project like an expert in the field. Students are able to engage in global-learning and produce a product that makes a difference in the world when they have reached the last level of cognitive complexity.
In the words of November (2013), “Learning design is a much more comprehensive approach than technology. It immediately implies that we need to make more changes than putting tools into the hands of our students and teachers”. Tools are productive when we have a purpose for using them. Teachers need to learn and understand what information is needed and how it connects to the real-world. Technology is important, but the processes are more important than technology itself (November, 2013). If teachers and students don’t have a relationship or connection to the learning, technology can be useless. Students that “own” their learning will be more responsible for the outcome or results of their work. It is important that educators really delve into what is important and how to integrate technology into every day lessons without “using the same script with new tools” (November, 2013).
Overall, when connecting the beliefs of November, Maxwell, Stobaugh, and Tassell, it is obvious that all authors strongly believe in connecting technology and higher-order thinking to better preparing students for the 21st century work place. Standards used today have embedded language and skills that allow teachers to open the door to higher-order thinking while using and creating products/projects digitally. When applying both technology and cognitive complexity levels to teaching, students will be better prepared to be successful and competitive workers in the job market today. It is our job, as educators, to make sure that we meet these important needs of all students. I agree with November (2013) in that technology is important today if used correctly and in a meaningful way in the classroom. However, it is important that teachers are aware of what needs to be taught, the overall goal of the objective, and how technology can be useful to fulfill that objective to reach a higher-level of thinking.
Resources
Maxwell, M., Stobaugh, R., & Tassell, J. L. (2015). Cognitive Complexity. In Real-world
learning framework for secondary schools: Digital tools and practical strategies for
successful implementation (pp. 33-50). United States: Solution Tree.
November, A. (2013, April 16). Don’t plan for technology; Plan for learning. Retrieved
September 18, 2016, from eSchool News Daily Tech News and Innovations,
http://www.eschoolnews.com/2013/04/16/dont-plan-for-technology-plan-for-learning/
