Philippe Wampfler, Didacta HannoverGeneration »Social Media«

Wie verändert digitale Kommunikation die Schule? 

Bild: Guillaume Rio

Yik Yak

Ablauf

1. Das fundamentale

Problem der Schule

Bild: Samkit D. Shah

1. Das fundamentale

Problem der SchuleBild: Wikimedia Commons

»non vitae, sed scholae discimus«

»lernen« oder lernen

SachverhaltProblem

Suche

Darstellung Austausch

reales Lernen

Sachverhalt

Traditionelle Didaktik

Digitale Kluft und BildungskluftBild: Flickr vaXine/CC NY NC

Chan

cen

I Kom

pete

nzen

Bildungsdauer

»bildungsnah«

»bildungsfern«

Chan

cen

I Kom

pete

nzen

Bildungsdauer

»bildungsnah«

»bildungsfern«

Digitalisierung

Chan

cen

I Kom

pete

nzen

Bildungsdauer

»bildungsnah«

»bildungsfern«

Digitalisierung

Teil 2

Auswirkungen der Digitalisierung

Konstruktivistisch-konnektivistisches Lernen ist Social Media

Ziel 1Vorbereitung aufs weitere Ausbildung

Bild: kellmarshall.net

Ziel 2Vorbereitung aufs Berufsleben

Ziel 3mündiges Mitglied der Gesellschaft

selbstgesteuerte Autos

Axiom

Jugendliche nutzen Medien nicht wie Erwachsene das

a) denken b) möchten

Klassenchat

Wikipedia

formaleLerntechniken

informelles Lernen

Schuledigital

WirkungZertifikate

Motivation Arbeitswelt

Sparrow / Wegener

Das Hirn eines Vogel Strauß‘ ist kleiner als eines seiner Augen.

Gelöscht! Gespeichert! Gespeichert in Ordner X

Sparrow / Wegener

Wir treten mit unseren digitalen Hilfsmitteln in eine symbiotische Beziehung und erinnern uns immer weniger, indem wir Informationen, und immer stärker, indem wir Speicherorte abrufen. »

»traditionelle Konzentration«

X-probe was presented, and participants had to refer to the cuethey maintained in the face of distractors (AX and BX trials):HMMs were 84 ms slower than LMMs to respond to AX trials,t (28) ! "3.27, P # 0.003, and 119 ms slower to respond to BXtrials, t (28) ! "3.25, P # 0.003, yielding a significant LMM/HMM status*presence of distractors interaction, F (1, 28) !5.21, P # 0.03. These data replicate the results from the filtertask, again demonstrating that HMMs are less selective inallowing information into working memory, and are thereforemore affected by distractors. As target trials comprised 70% of all trials in the standard

version of the AX-CPT, the task was also indicative of theparticipants’ ability to withhold prepotent responses, i.e., theirability to withhold a target response on the relatively rare BX orAY trials, each of which constituted only 10% of trials. The lackof significant differences between the groups, reinforced by theabsence of a group difference on the Stop-Signal task (15), t(37) ! "0.15, P $ 0.88, suggests that the two groups do not differin their level of response control.

Filtering Irrelevant Representations in Memory: Two- and Three-BackTasks. In the two- and three-back tasks (16), which examine themonitoring and updating of multiple representations in workingmemory, HMMs showed a significantly greater decrease inperformance (d%) from the two- to the three-back task;task*HMM/LMM status interaction, F (1, 28) ! 4.25, P # 0.05.Interestingly, although both groups showed similar decreases inhit-rates (the number of targets correctly identified) from thetwo-back to the three-back task, F (1, 28) ! 0.14, P $ 0.72 (Fig.3A), HMMs showed a greater increase in their false alarm rate(the number of nontargets incorrectly marked as targets), F (1,28) ! 5.02, P # 0.03 (Fig. 3B). This effect was driven by targetletters that had previously appeared during the task, but wereoutside the range participants were instructed to hold in mem-ory. Specifically, in the three-back task, HMMs were more likelyto false alarm to letters that had more previous appearances, F(1, 13) ! 6.31, P # 0.03. This indicates that the HMMs were more

Fig. 1. The filter task. (A) A sample trial with a 2-target, 6-distractor array.(B) HMM and LMM filter task performance as a function of the number ofdistractors (two targets). Error bars, SEM.

Fig. 2. AX-CPT mean response times in the no-distractors and the distractorsconditions (note that the overall decrease in response times from the nodistractors to the distractors condition is due to greater predictability of probeonset as a result of the rhythmic nature of the distractors; the key data pointis the difference in the distractors condition between LMMs and HMMs). Errorbars, SEM.

Fig. 3. Two- and three-back task results. (A) Hit rates. (B) False alarm rates.Error bars, SEM.

15584 ! www.pnas.org"cgi"doi"10.1073"pnas.0903620106 Ophir et al.

Multitasking

X-probe was presented, and participants had to refer to the cuethey maintained in the face of distractors (AX and BX trials):HMMs were 84 ms slower than LMMs to respond to AX trials,t (28) ! "3.27, P # 0.003, and 119 ms slower to respond to BXtrials, t (28) ! "3.25, P # 0.003, yielding a significant LMM/HMM status*presence of distractors interaction, F (1, 28) !5.21, P # 0.03. These data replicate the results from the filtertask, again demonstrating that HMMs are less selective inallowing information into working memory, and are thereforemore affected by distractors. As target trials comprised 70% of all trials in the standard

version of the AX-CPT, the task was also indicative of theparticipants’ ability to withhold prepotent responses, i.e., theirability to withhold a target response on the relatively rare BX orAY trials, each of which constituted only 10% of trials. The lackof significant differences between the groups, reinforced by theabsence of a group difference on the Stop-Signal task (15), t(37) ! "0.15, P $ 0.88, suggests that the two groups do not differin their level of response control.

Filtering Irrelevant Representations in Memory: Two- and Three-BackTasks. In the two- and three-back tasks (16), which examine themonitoring and updating of multiple representations in workingmemory, HMMs showed a significantly greater decrease inperformance (d%) from the two- to the three-back task;task*HMM/LMM status interaction, F (1, 28) ! 4.25, P # 0.05.Interestingly, although both groups showed similar decreases inhit-rates (the number of targets correctly identified) from thetwo-back to the three-back task, F (1, 28) ! 0.14, P $ 0.72 (Fig.3A), HMMs showed a greater increase in their false alarm rate(the number of nontargets incorrectly marked as targets), F (1,28) ! 5.02, P # 0.03 (Fig. 3B). This effect was driven by targetletters that had previously appeared during the task, but wereoutside the range participants were instructed to hold in mem-ory. Specifically, in the three-back task, HMMs were more likelyto false alarm to letters that had more previous appearances, F(1, 13) ! 6.31, P # 0.03. This indicates that the HMMs were more

Fig. 1. The filter task. (A) A sample trial with a 2-target, 6-distractor array.(B) HMM and LMM filter task performance as a function of the number ofdistractors (two targets). Error bars, SEM.

Fig. 2. AX-CPT mean response times in the no-distractors and the distractorsconditions (note that the overall decrease in response times from the nodistractors to the distractors condition is due to greater predictability of probeonset as a result of the rhythmic nature of the distractors; the key data pointis the difference in the distractors condition between LMMs and HMMs). Errorbars, SEM.

Fig. 3. Two- and three-back task results. (A) Hit rates. (B) False alarm rates.Error bars, SEM.

15584 ! www.pnas.org"cgi"doi"10.1073"pnas.0903620106 Ophir et al.

phwa.ch/ophir

Dumbphone -> Smartphone

Herausforderungen

Verstehen, warum sie tun, was sie tun

YouNow

Verstehen, was Geräte und Apps tun

SnapchatMotherless

Schlafen

Bild: Zoran Milutinovic

problematisches Verhalten

problematische Mediennutzung

Die Angst, etwas zu verpassenFOMO

Die Angst, etwas zu verpassenFOMO

GrundbedürfnisseAutonomieKompetenz

Geliebt-Werden

Über Probleme sprechen

Den Wert von Geduld schätzen lernen

BullshitHarry G. Frankfurt

3. Lösungsansätze

Bild: Dina Belenko

Schule hacken

Bild: Energi.Design

Portfolios ersetzen Prüfungen

einfacher

reflektierter

Design von Lernumgebungen

1. Sharing-Kultur 2. Coaching und Feedback 3. informelles <->

formelles Lernen

Medien produktiv nutzen

Vertrauen statt Überwachung

digitale Pausen anbieten

SelbstachtsamkeitMediennutzung reflektieren

Danke!

Folien: Kontakt:

phwa.ch/didacta2015 wampfler@schulesocialmedia.ch+41 78 704 29 29 phwampfler

nicht verwendete Folien

Susan Neiman»

»Victim Blaming« vermeiden

Das Standardisierungsproblem

(1) Lernen ist nicht standardisierbar

(2) Menschen sind nicht standardisierbar

(3) Maschinen arbeiten standardisiert

Context Collapse

Richard David Precht ORF heute konkret, 16. Oktober 2014 Quelle: facebook.com/heutekonkret

Eltern verletzen PS

Jugendliche schützen PS nicht

?

Paradox der Privatsphäre

Medienkompetenz anstreben

Beziehungen online und offline pflegen

anders sein als alle anderen

2. Auswirkungen der

DigitalisierungBild: Soler Riaz

KonstruktivismusIch und die Welt

KonnektivismusArbeit in Netzwerken

n-back-Test

»non vitae, sed scholae discimus«

Bild: Wikimedia Commons

Teil 3Lösungsansätze

Von der Bring- zur Holinformation