The Human Touch

I ran into a nice article in one of my favorite education sites called Education Next, which is run by the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. The article is called The Human Touch and its author is Dr. Lowell Monke, an education professor at Wittenburg University in Ohio. Dr. Monke does a nice job clarifying the limits and subtle dangers involved in the rush to implement technology in the classroom. Dr Monke makes quite a few excellent points, and his article is well worth reading. Here are just a few excerpts that I particularly enjoyed:

"A computer can inundate a child with mountains of information. However, all of this learning takes place the same way: through abstract symbols, decontextualized and cast on a two-dimensional screen. Contrast that with the way children come to know a tree–by peeling its bark, climbing its branches, sitting under its shade, jumping into its piled-up leaves. Just as important, these firsthand experiences are enveloped by feelings and associations–muscles being used, sun warming the skin, blossoms scenting the air. The computer cannot even approximate any of this."

"Not only do computers send structural ripples throughout a school system, but they also subtly alter the way we think about education. The old saw, “To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail,” has many corollaries (the walls of my home once testified to one of my favorites: to a four-year-old with a crayon, everything looks like drawing paper). One that fits here is, “To an educator with a computer, everything looks like information.” And the more prominent we make computers in schools (and in our own lives), the more we see the rapid accumulation, manipulation, and sharing of information as central to the learning process–edging out the contemplation and expression of ideas and the gradual development of meaningful connections to the world."

"Here we encounter the ambiguity of technology: its propensity to promote certain qualities while sidelining others. McLuhan called this process amplification and amputation"  "This phenomenon is of particular concern with children, who are in the process of developing all kinds of inner capacities. Examples abound of technology’s circumventing the developmental process: the student who uses a spell checker instead of learning to spell, the student who uses a calculator instead of learning to add–young people sacrificing internal growth for external power."

"None of this is to say that we should banish computers from all levels of K-12 education. As young people move into subject areas like advanced mathematics and chemistry that rely on highly abstract concepts, computers have much to offer. Young people will also need computer skills when they graduate. But computer-based learning needs to grow out of years of concrete experience and a fundamental appreciation for the world apart from the machine, a world in which nature and human beings are able to speak for and through themselves to the child. "

And finally,

"There remains a problem, however. When (Francis) Bacon began pushing the technological ideology, Western civilization was full of meaning and wretchedly short on the material means of survival. Today we face the reverse situation: a society saturated in material comforts but almost devoid of meaning."

One Word: Questions

Here is a video which makes, in my view, a similar argument to Derek Muller's in an earlier post (This Will Revolutionize Education). If you remember, Muller's ultimate conclusion was that, with or without the use of technology, what is most important in the learning process is what goes on inside the mind of the learner. This video is from Paul Anderson's website "Boseman Science". He is a former Teacher of the Year in Montana. On this site, he publishes video lessons on quite a few science topics. He also publishes videos with his take on different educational topics. This particular video is titled One Word: Questions. The title is taken from a scene from the movie The Graduate in which Dustin Hoffman is given some sage career advice. Anyway, in Anderson's view, the commonly held idea that electronic textbooks will replace physical texts (through the dissemination of IPads, for example) will not necessarily occur in the near future. However, his main point is that electronic versus physical books is not the main issue. The more important issue relates to the types of questions that students will ultimately have to wrestle with. Poor questions on a computer are just as useless as poor questions in a physical book. (Anderson is also on the same page as Muller in pointing out that the social dimension of education is critical, and stuffing computers/Ipads into classrooms alone is not enough). In other words, once again, the technology is not the issue per se. The main issue is, as Muller pointed out previously, is what ultimately goes on in the mind of the learner.

WHY AM I WRITING THIS BLOG?

This blog is intended to be a place for me to summarize and clarify my thoughts and ideas related to the use of technology in the classroom. From my observations, it seems that this is a polarizing topic. Some teachers are "true believers" who feel that technology is destined to revolutionize education. They embrace it with gusto.  At the other end of the spectrum are the "naysayers" who feel that the ills present in our current education system have no relation to the use (or non-use) of technology. There are obviously many shades of grey between these admittedly simplified extremes. I think of myself as embracing ideas contained in both modes of thought. I admit to having a bit of the "naysayer" in me. Actually, I think of it more as being reticent to change any classroom method I have found to be useful over my teaching career. The students in my classroom have only one year with me and, if I try something that doesn't work, they will bear the cost. That being said, I also believe that technology has the possibility of improving or even eventually revolutionizing education. Be it ultimately a revolution, an evolution, or much ado about nothing, my objective in this area is to take seriously the idea that technology might be able to change my classroom methods for the better, while simultaneously maintaining a posture of healthy skepticism. As new technologies emerge, I plan to study them seriously and employ any that will likely offer my students a better learning experience. For example, I am considering flipping one of my Regents Physics sections next year (2015-2016 school year). I have been thinking about and researching this idea for a few years now, and it seems that the time may be right for a small scale implementation. This will probably be a topic for multiple future blog posts. Anyway, as I said at the beginning of this post, I hope this blog will help me (force me?) to elucidate my thoughts. I welcome any comments as this journey unfolds!

This Will Revolutionize Education

This video seems like a good starting point for my blog posts. It is from one of my favorite YouTube sites named Veritasium. The site's creator is Derek Muller. He has his PhD in Physics Education, and the topics for his videos are (not surprisingly) usually physics related. His PhD was actually in the area of the use of videos to teach physics. This video, however, presents an insightful perspective on the multitude of  (ultimately false) promises promoted throughout the years which all claimed that some new technology would revolutionize education. See what you think.