The Rise of the Machines: The Dangers and Promises of Technology in the Classroom

A good friend of mine has a mother who has, for over forty years, been a classroom teacher, mostly in private, Christian schools.  Recently, she and I had a conversation about her cellular phone upgrade.  She said that her phone provider (along with her children) was vigorously encouraging her to purchase either an iPhone or an Android.  In asking about how I liked my iPhone, I told her that it had phenomenal capabilities, most of which I would probably never realize and access.  Technology, after all, is much like a foreign language, which is partly why the younger generation seems to adapt to it so easily while older generations, mine included, seem to a bit more clumsy (Yelland, 2006).  The young still have their language acquisition device (Clark, 2009).  My daughter, three years old, literally has to show me how to use certain iPhone apps!

Since we are both classroom educators, the conversation naturally turned to the implications of technology in the classroom.  Though she was mystified and impressed with the iPhone’s “siri” application (the digital private assistant that can perform a number of tasks – Internet searches, scheduling, placing calls, finding directions, etc. – by simple voice commands), she expressed concerns that the technology was “dumbing down” current generations (and would do so to future generations, probably at a more astonishing rate).  She, of course, is not alone in her fears.  Bauerlein (2008) has built an entire career off of presaging doomsday scenarios that arise from the stupefying effects of technology on the young.  He certainly makes a number of valid points: the Web “produces an appetite for familiar items easily consumed” but does not “produce deeper understanding and heightened curiosity”; social media demeans human relationships; youth, who engage in such extensive texting and “Facebooking” are loosing the ability to communicate verbally (Bauerlein, 2012, p. 6).

I would agree that each of these dangers exist.  They are not, however, formal dangers inherent only in technology.  Indeed, in the wrong hands and without proper guidance, technology could facilitate any number of social ills…but so could printed media (e.g., pornography, hate literature, etc.).  Effective educators have always insisted that technology should not and can not be a substitute for a teacher (Hooper & Rieber, 1995).  Armed with technology as a platform for the dissemination of content (but not the content itself), teachers can enhance the value of human relationships, steering students not just to exchanges with classmates, boyfriend/girlfriends, and teammates, but with peers in Europe, Africa, and Asia.  Rather than allowing technology to impede the use of verbal communication, certain applications (like Dragon Dictation) can simultaneously teach students how to write and speak.  Rather than allow technology to package information merely in easily consumable bites, teachers can guide students to locations and repositories of digitized documents that they would never have visited or read otherwise.

When the assembly line was becoming a mainstay of American manufacturing, some feared that this innovation heralded the death of the skilled craftsman and their guilds.  The assembly line, they warned, was dehumanizing (Linhart, 1981).  Some may argue that dehumanization is precisely what took place.  Others would argue, however, that the assembly line increased the potential for productivity and permitted intellectual and creative efforts to be diverted elsewhere.  I imagine that there is truth in both arguments.  Similarly, technology represents real potential threats to education, but the promises and potentialities cannot be denied either.  With great power comes great responsibility, and shouldn’t teachers teach responsibility?

References

Bauerlein, M. (2012, Summer). Connectivity issues. The Wilson Quarterly, 36(3), 6.

Bauerlein, M. (2008). The dumbest generation: How the digital age stupefies young Americans and jeopardizes our future (or, don’t trust anyone under 30). New York, NY: Penguin.

Clark, E.V. (2008). First language acquisition (2^nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hooper, S., & Rieber, L.P. (1995). Teaching with technology. In A. C. Ornstein (Ed.), Teaching: Theory into practice, pp. 154-170.  Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Linhart, R. (1981). The assembly line. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.

Yelland, N. (2009). Shift to the future: Rethinking learning with new technologies in education. New York, NY: Routledge.

A Gifted Case Study: "Searching For Bobby Fischer"

                Last night was family movie night, and my wife, a fellow educator, selected one of my all-time favorites, Searching for Bobby Fischer.  I imagine that most gifted educators have seen the film at one point or another, likely during your gifted endorsement program.  For those who haven't, it must be placed at the top of the Netflix cue.  Beyond being a great film and a true story, it is an excellent case study in the characteristics and challenges that many gifted children face.  After viewing the film, my wife suggested I add a film review to my blog since, she reasoned, any good discussion on education, particularly education, will eventually have to get around to Bobby Fischer!

The film is the story of Josh Waitzkin, a chess prodigy who began playing chess at the age of six, defeated a chess master at the age of ten, led his school to six national chess championships from grades 3 to 9 (while winning eight individual national championships during the same span), and who won the U.S. Junior Chess Championship in 1993 and 1994.  His teacher fails to recognize his talents for what they were and, instead, regarded them contemptuously, as though they were distracting him from more important academic pursuits in the classroom.  His father and professional coach recognizes the gift and relentlessly pushes Josh to refine and master his skills, overlooking that fact (which only his mother and friend, Vinnie, seem to appreciate) that, while being gifted in a particular area, Josh is nevertheless a child, with all the emotions, dreams, and frailties that children possess.

As an educator, I consider the film's greatest value to be the manner in which it illustrates a number of gifted characteristics.  Giftedness, of course, is a broad, ill-defined concept, but children with extraordinary gifts in the area of abstraction, intuition, and critical thinking possess a number of hallmark characteristics, some of which Josh shares.

Josh is, first, highly inquisitive.  In the opening scene of the film, for example, while playing during a rain storm, Josh ventures into an underbrush and finds a lone chess piece lying on the ground.  He is encountered by Vinnie, who would eventually be his friend and mentor, who offers to exchange the chess piece for a baseball.  Josh is so fascinated by the chess piece that he refuses the offer.  His inquisitiveness is further suggested during frequent trips through the park, where he becomes intensely intrigued by the game of speed chess.  Disregarding many of the foul elements present in the park that might offend or scare many others – i.e., alcohol, gambling, the presumption of drugs, homelessness, etc. – Josh seems to be completely undeterred in his pursuit of observing, and eventually, participating in the game of chess.

Josh also exhibits an extraordinarily mature degree of conscientiousness.  While he may not have developed a concern for the plight of homelessness in America in general, he is able to draw the inference that Vinnie is homeless, and he is so bothered by that fact that he asks his mother to allow Vinnie to sleep on his top bunk.  In doing so, Josh demonstrates, not only a great deal of personal affection for his friend, but an ability, beyond his years, to recognize differences in economic conditions and situations and to empathize with those who may not share his social status.

Perhaps Josh’s most telling gifted characteristic is his remarkable ability to learn and master the game of chess with little or no prior experience with the game, his keen sense of observation, and his ability to construct abstractions.  While the film does indicate that Josh’s skills are unrefined, and that he does require extended, professional training to achieve the level of master, his rudimentary abilities far exceed those of nearly all of his peers and many of the adults (professionals and lay players) that he encounters.  Josh seems to have learned the most basic and many advanced techniques from mere, occasional observation.  With each game he plays and, eventually, each lesson from his professional tutor, Bruce Pandolfini, Josh advances at a remarkably swift pace, defeating former adult U.S. champions, learning the skill of developing combinations with no pieces on the chess board, anticipating plays that are 6-7 moves in the future, etc.

Despite his gifts and abilities, Josh shares, with many of his gifted peers, an extremely critical view of himself.  During the film, he begins to succumb to the pressures of his family, teacher, and the competition, he begins to lose sight of the basic enjoyment of the art of chess, and he begins to question his own abilities.  Like many gifted learners, Josh is nearly overwhelmed by the fear of failure.  He comes to view chess as a lose-lose situation: if he loses, people will say he was not that good, but if he wins, people will say that they assumed he would do so.  It is in the moment of crisis that Josh demonstrates perhaps his most profound gift – the gift of goodness and decency that leads him to remember his love for chess, to cling to his kindness and defeat the urge to “hate” his opponent, and ultimately, to win honorably.

                Searching for Bobby Fischer is a remarkable, compelling, and truly moving story.  It illustrates not only the extraordinary abilities that the gifted possess, but also the extraordinary, sometimes overwhelming burdens the gifted may carry.  In doing so, it encourages the viewer to remember always the innate dignity of every child and to be aware that, though the gifted may appear adequately equipped for success, they are often times the most vulnerable and frail.

Tea Time with Skinner

I had a great conversation today with an old friend over lunch.  We are both educators, we are both enthusiastic about educational theory and practice, and though we don’t always see eye to eye, we always enjoy our conversations (or, as we often call them, our “duels”).  Today, the topic of behaviorism came up.  Just to tip my hand, I am somewhat of an admirer of B.F. Skinner (with some qualifications), and my friend is an avid constructivist who pastes posters of Dewey and Kilpatrick all over his bedroom walls!  Since behaviorism continues to be one of the most enduring debates in education (with immediate implications for classroom teachers, whether they be gifted, general education, or special education), I thought that, as a postscript to my conversation, I'd highlight a few of the insights of behaviorism that I have found particularly valuable, with a word of caution about each.  I don't deny that these reflect my own worldview precommitments, but we are talking about theory here.  No theory is value-neutral.  I invite discussion and disagreement:

1. Since food, shelter, and warmth are basic needs, there is certainly a basic reinforcement principle innate to human beings.  HOWEVER, human beings are complex.  They are biological, but they are also cognitive and moral.  Theories of learning that stop with behavior do not adequately account for value or morality, unless morality is defined in terms of behavior that increases survival.

2. Behaviorism allows teachers to provide predictable educational environments for students, as expected behaviors and potential consequences are clearly defined.  HOWEVER, behaviorism alone, does not account for mitigated responses to mitigating factors (i.e., mercy, exceptions to the rule, etc.).

3. Behaviorism allows the teacher to control student behaviors in order to build effective classroom management.  HOWEVER, behaviorism alone ignores the morally instructive aspects of rewards and punishment, focusing instead on behavior manipulation (as a teacher, I want to instruct students to act in a certain way because it reflects civic virtue, not merely because it is a conditioned impulse).

4. Behaviorism, like no other theory, recognizes the tremendous relationship between environment and behavior.  HOWEVER, by itself, behaviorism is mechanistic and fatalistic, removing the possibility of free, responsible choices.

Behaviorism emphasizes the importance of external considerations on learning, but it yields its greatest benefits when it is observed alongside other learning theories, like social cognitive theory, which emphasizes the interaction of external considerations and internal considerations.  When dealing with the classroom application of learning theories, educators (particularly young educators who are full of energy, optimism, and often times, opinions) would do well to remember that all theories are, in themselves, reductionistic.  Taken in isolation, they represent only a piece of the complex puzzle of human learning and cognition.