Saturday 30 June 2012

Smoke screens.

"Knowledge comes from crafted bindings and pages, Buffy, not ones and zeroes."

I don't like technology. Not just a slight aversion based on unfamiliarity; we're talking about deep-rooted loathing. Seriously, my friends and family all make fun of me for being such a zealous Luddite. In fact, I named my blog after a cherished fantasy of mine: to start a school on a lighthouse island. All the faculty and students would live there together, or perhaps just on the mainland, and I would also tend the lighthouse. In addition to a core curriculum like any other school, with rigorous and passionate instruction in math, history, languages, a wide range of literatures, and the sciences, we would also teach our students how to whittle and identify plants and sail and garden. It would be an education that connected students to the world around them, both socially and geologically, as much as I feel the digital age has removed us from it. Despite what my loved ones think, though, this abhorrence of a computer-obsessed world isn't just an eccentric affectation by a woman infatuated with earlier times.

We think of technology as magic: infallible. But it's not, is it? After all, how many of us have gotten in a fight with our darn computer not printing, or freezing up right in the middle of that paper, or not connecting to the Internet at the exact wrong moment even though the router's right there? We put all of our trust in something that could so easily break down at any minute, and does.

Not only that, it's separating us from each other. More and more, people aren't communicating anymore, not really. Instead, we're settling for connection, and that just barely. It's more the illusion of connection. So what happens if we bring that into the classroom?

In our first class, we talked about an article by Bill Sheskey, "Creating Learning Connections With Today's Tech-Savvy Student," in which he described a project that took the power out of the hands of the teacher and put it into the hands of the students. Don't get me wrong; I'm all for engaging students in their own education. But if we're putting education online in such a fundamental way, aren't we contributing to the death of the classroom? More and more, people are going back to school online; a great fear of mine is that in time, the physical classroom will be as obsolete as printed books or wax-sealed letters (two of my greatest passions). Where does it stop? I know that we need to reach out to students on a level they understand, a level that feels natural to them, but how far do we go before we're digging our own graves, or at best just pandering? I want future generations to love the smell of books, to love sitting down in the tangible presence of real human beings and sharing ideas, to respect and value and understand organic conversation that can't be deleted or drafted. Am I modeling that sort of behavior if I'm encouraging them to put everything online? Can they really not get just as much benefit from demonstrating things in front of other people, in person, not in cyberspace?

Perhaps not, come to that. In his article, Sheskey mentions that in 2006 -- that's six years ago now, mind -- "two-thirds of infants and toddlers watch a screen an average of two hours per day." By this time, who knows if they can develop perspective without seeing something on a screen. Because that's the difference, after all; the interactive aspect, the personal control, the self-determination, the intra-classroom constructive criticism, those could all happen without a camera or a computer. Why is it so important for them to see this work on a screen?

Perhaps technology can be equated with magic: powerful. Evolving. In the wrong hands, disastrous. In the right hands, though, maybe...maybe we can teach students that they don't have to choose between the old world, the world I love, and the new world that belongs to them. Maybe they can have both. I'm looking forward (kind of) to learning how to do that.

15 comments:

  1. Saskia, LUUUUV that you opened with a quote from my favorite scribe for the medium we call television: The Great Joss Whedon. I knew your blog would be entertaining and thoughtful. I'm liking the feeling and tone of this first post. Keep up your resistance. I want to see the epic battle, Saskia vs. The Robuts, unfold over the next several months.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Alex! I agree on the Joss Whedon = God front. And believe me: the battle will be epic. Never give up; never surrender!

      Delete
  2. Over the next several months, her dutiful and loving brother will persistently proffer argument in support of the Robuts. I'm myself a dedicated cyberman straight from fictional Britain circa 2010. You can expect doting critique, Sas. <3

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DOWN WITH THE ROBUTS! Thank you, M. <3

      Delete
    2. I don't think you've ever called me 'M' before. It took me a while to realize you were talking to me. Are we using monickers here? I'm confused.

      Delete
    3. Oh, I don't know why I did that; we were encouraged to use initials or monickers for other people, but since your name is your actual name, there's no need.

      Delete
    4. I think that's probably a good idea. If you plan on saying anything controversial on the internet, anonymity can help mitigate the intimidation, death threats and other forms of cyber-bullying. Especially if you ever wind up talking about feminism or something resembling feminism. The internet will try to tear you a new one if you do that. (Note: this is not an invitation to get into feminism or a discussion of why the internet hates it. To do so would also invite the wrath of the anons.)

      Delete
  3. DV, I completely agree with your last statement. Balance, not battle (Alex!), should be our aim as teachers. Chances are, you're students are going to come to you with a strong predilection towards all kinds of technology. It's your job to use that technology to get them interested in reading, writing and literature (as I know you will).

    Something to think about: When I was a child reading kept me from communicating, not technology (although, mind you, I was a child when dial up was just coming into existence and my dad would have skinned me if he'd found me using the computer to go on AOL chat). I would lock myself up in the house for hours reading, instead of going outside where I could play and communicate with my peers. My mother had to force me out of the house.

    In many ways, kids now days are more connected than I was when I was a child. They are constantly texting and emailing. This is just a different form of communication.

    Is texting and chatting replacing face-to-face communication? Or is it supplementing it? Kids still hang out and go to the movies and parties etc. They just have a long conversation over Facebook first before meeting up.

    Right? What think ye, fair maiden?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But is it real communication? The article to which I link in the fourth paragraph describes how even the teenagers themselves admit to not being able to hold a real, honest-to-goodness conversation. Like you, I preferred the company of books to the company of my peers, but when I did interact with them, it was real interaction, nothing synthetic or distanced about it. I argue that typing messages into a little box doesn't have the same directness of those late-night conversations you have on the phone, curled up in the corner, or lying in twin beds after a sleepover. "Playing" meant enacting reimagined scenes from Little Women or Pocahontas, having to use our imaginations, not sitting side by side and staring at a screen.

      I'll leave you with this: yes, kids today are certainly more linked up. But is that the same thing as real connection?

      Delete
    2. My counter to that is I don't believe it matters. Or rather, it has consequences, but first you'd have to justify to me that this is an inherently bad direction to move into. No one is going to argue that online connection is the same as direct, but it's not a foregone conclusion that a 'different' means of communication is a 'worse' one. You've taken part in online Role Playing, in which participants use their imaginative abilities and writing skills to-- I don't have to explain this to you. The point is that I don't think that's any less stimulating to the imagination than your childhood acting attempts. Online communication can be meaningful and valuable as much as any other form. It develops many crucial skills we need in modern society-- computer savvy, writing skills, utilization of online resources, vast networking, multitasking. These aren't the same lessons learned from direct interaction, but they're important nonetheless.

      I also feel like you'd be hard pressed to argue that social interactions are disappearing entirely. You didn't really give Meg here a fair response. As she said, people still like to meet each other in person-- to watch movies, to play games, to talk, to eat, to study, to have sleep overs. In fact arguably they do more than ever *because* of social media; so much so that I often miss my alone time. People can always reach me and always drag me into a social context unless I shut off all connections to the internet. Don't you feel as though these online connections act as a supplement, not a replacement? And in the cases where they do prefer the cyber to the real, don't you feel that's a symptom of the busy lifestyle and suburban sprawl, rather than technology itself? The reason I don't meet with friends in person is typically not because I don't know how to interact with them or because I prefer online connectivity-- it's because they don't live close to me and I simply don't have time. You're quick to blame the symptom for the disease.

      People like me who were never very social to begin with, on the other hand, benefit tremendously from the Internet. We go from limited social interaction to a vast web of people like ourselves that we can talk to, albeit it digitally. Sometimes we can even meet up with them, if they happen to live nearby.

      I'll leave you with this: would the discussion we're having now be better in person, or would it merely be different? Taking into account that this forum allows us to formulate our thoughts slowly and clearly, possibly to reference a treasure trove of online documents on the subject, and to have a discussion with a wide spectrum of individuals around the globe.

      Delete
  4. I'm a fan because I don't like people. The less I have to listen to them or (God forbid) be forced to spend time with them, the happier I am.

    To provide an actual counter argument: while I do believe that an in-person class can provide information in a much superior way than an online class, take the example of a student who is already farther along than the class level. To draw from person experience, I took the IB tests in high school and not AP. Even though my IB HL physics test was MUCH harder than the AP physics test, my college refused to grant credit (even though they grant credit for a comparable score on the AP test). Because of this, I was forced to sit through a class in which i learned nothing. Absolutely nothing. By providing an online alternative, I could have completed the work at my own pace and only taken the tests, rather than having to show up for a 4 hour waste-of-time.

    Is that example the norm? Probably not. But we've all suffered through classes that were complete wastes of time. If they had been online, we could have avoided having to actually sit through the class.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your posting has sparked some lively discussion, DV...bravo. I believe rather strongly that true education is significantly about the ability of teachers to convey a sense of passion for what they teach...for ideas, for give and take, and for sensory experiences. I honor and share many of the concerns you raised about what is valuable in a learning relationship, and it is frankly incumbent on you to find ways to enact your beliefs in your teaching. I have seen learning technology used to build upon what goes on in the classroom, to access broader and more diverse audiences for student work and, ultimately, to honor student work. Technology can also be used to reinforce lacklustre teaching and to depersonalize the classroom. If this class can be a place where you continue to wrestle with the kinds of questions that you raise here, then ED 504 will have been a success.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Fear not, I think face to face will never go away, as I think books will always be with us. My 13 yr old devours books. I often times find myself reminding him late at night it is time to go to bed and his response, every time, "I am almost done with this chapter" My daughter loves to read and every at least 30 minutes is spent with her reading to us or one of us reading to her...the trick is to figure out how reading, touching smelling and imagining the words off the page of a well worn book is every bit as exciting as watching the movie version...something I think you will never have a problem with...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Woman, it's been 11 days since your first post now. It's time you did what we pay you to do. Or whatever. I didn't think this through. But I need a distraction from work and your blog was one of those things.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Saskia. I just wrote a AOIGHAWEOGIHAWEOFHWE long response to your blog. And then when I hit "submit," it reloaded and was deleted.

    Here's to technology and my bad luck.

    I'll try again on another day when I don't have the urge to drop-kick my computer. Apologies to anyone reading this, and looking for something substantial upon which to reflect.

    But perhaps you all know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

    I know Saskia does.

    ReplyDelete