Joe McConda on Technology, Education, and Culture

I have found the book High Tech Heretic by Clifford Stoll interesting. For me, he is sort of the “voice of reason” in the midst of all that we have read and heard about the use of computers in the classroom. I can’t say that I agree with everything he says, but I do think that he has some valid points. I think we should avoid the “technology for the sake of technology” mentality that puts computers in every room in order to jump on the “computer bandwagon” to say “All our schools/classrooms are using computers.”

The main problem I have with Stoll’s views is that culture has changed in that students today are very much different from the way they were in Stoll’s (and my) day. I can relate to many of the things that Stoll recalled about his experiences as a student. I am grateful to have had the rote memorization and drills that he refers to as part of my education that gave me good arithmetic and good “number sense” skills. Students (and their parents) today, however, don’t relate to this at all. The culture truly has changed. Today, students balk at having to memorize anything…… And, why should they? Anything they need to know is at their fingertips. The Internet makes so much more possible today than what was available to my generation. Technology such as calculators, computers with internet access are comparable to the technology of the pencil and paper of many, many years ago. Why work it out in your head, if you can do it with pencil and paper? Can you imagine a young person saying that years ago? I was against using calculators for all the same reasons Stoll espouses, but now that I have taught for a few years, I’ve changed my mind to some degree. Since calculators today are so small and inexpensive, they can be used as easily as pencil and paper. Knowing what to tell the calculator to do is more important than being able to do it quickly in your head or on paper.

I’m still inclined to believe that memorization and rote drills of some skills such as multiplication is the most beneficial way to learn these necessary skills. If this was done in the early elementary grades, students would be much more prepared to learn algebra in middle school and high school. Again, culture has definitely changed. I doubt that most younger elementary teachers would know their multiplication tables themselves because they were not required to memorize them. They would probably not be motivated to insist that their students memorize them either. By the time they get to middle school or high school, teachers don’t have time to spend on basic arithmetic skills because they must spend time “covering” specific content as required by the state.

I realize that Stoll wrote this book around the year 2000. I’m sure that if he wrote it today, he would say things differently. Why? Because the nature of the internet has changed. Computers are not just machines that run software and teach concepts the same way the textbook used to. Now, there are blogs, skype, etc. that make interacting and sharing knowledge much easier and more practical. Stoll mentions the fact that students can do work for school, like science projects, etc., downloading information from the internet while not really understanding what they are writing. This, in my opinion, is really no different than in my day, reading an encyclopedia and trying to paraphrase the content for a report of some kind. Today, the information is so much more accessible and there has always been the propensity for “just getting the assignment done”, but we have to understand that with the technology…….everything has changed and the culture is new and different. For example, just now, as I was trying to think of the word I wanted to use in the previous sentence….first, I used the word potential and I thought, “No, that’s not what I want.” I kept saying the word, but it wasn’t what I knew it should be, so I just spelled it out and then “right clicked” to get it to search Google for my word. It immediately found the word I couldn’t think of correctly. Not only that, but all I had to do was click on it to get the definition for propensity and I thought, “Yeah, what’s wrong with that?” I didn’t have to get up and go find a dictionary or thesaurus to find the word I knew I wanted, but couldn’t even pronounce, let alone spell correctly. Yeah, it’s a different world and the culture of education has changed.

One other thing. Even in Stoll’s time and mine, there were students who “didn’t get it”. Just as there are students today who are “left behind”, there were students then who were also “left behind” . It may be that Stoll, while I agree with MUCH of what he says, is not seeing the entire student population when he speaks of the best way to learn and “the good ole days” of education. The current has shifted and what worked before is not working now.

This class is turning out to be another learning experience to say the least.  Last semester, in Dr. Lowell’s class, I felt like I was caught in a whirlpool, going round and round, unable to catch my breath.  I finally got my footing, though, and once it was all over could sigh with relief and the realization that I had learned a lot and had been places I’d never been before.  Well, learning about and doing an ethnography is starting to stir that whirlpool back up for me.  I have tried twitter, then decided to go with Facebook for my SNS.  However, I am having problems finding “friends” and interacting much with it.  I haven’t joined any groups.  It was interesting, though, because one group popped up; I suppose because the town I live in is the name of the high school here.  My wife teaches there.  It was a group of alumni and it was very interesting to read the list that went something like…”You know you’re a __________High School Grad when…….   I called my wife over to look at it and she was so relieved that she hadn’t made the list as some teachers had.

Anyway, I know I need to be more involved in the space in order to be part of the culture.  I’m just not gettin’ it.  Another interesting thing happened this morning, though.  I checked my hotmail and there was a message from”Angie” inviting me to join her
“MySpace”.  I checked her profile, thinking she was probably in our class.  I didn’t think I had created my own MySpace account.  Her profile said she is from Florida and no mention of Morehead.  At any rate, I accepted her invitation and found that I really didn’t have a MySpace.  So, I created one.  Then I tried to accept her invitation and was told she didn’t accept invitations from people she doesn’t know.   Go figure……..

That reminds me of something else that happened on Facebook.  A picture of a member of our class always appears on my Facebook page.  It says he is in my area or something like that.  Anyway, I’ve tried to add him as a friend twice.  The last time I did it, I was told I was going to get “kicked off”  Facebook if I sent an invitation again.

If any of you have any suggestions for me, I’d love to hear them and get help with this new culture!

As suggested by Dr. Lowell in his post Mulling Tuition Policy, I read the article by Scott Jaschik. What was quoted in the last paragraph really caught my attention and reminded me of the things we’ve discussed previously. He quotes a college trustee who is responding to comments from others who lament the fact that colleges are only giving aid to the “motivated and wise” thereby limiting access to the lower echelon of students.

“But a trustee in the audience shot back: “If you are the slightest bit motivated, you can get a 3.0,” referring to a common grade requirement for scholarships. And if failing to meet that requirement means some students can’t go on after community college, she said that was fine. “Not everyone needs a bachelor’s degree. We need good auto mechanics and carpenters,” she said.’

— Scott Jaschik

I agree with the trustee. Auto mechanics and carpentry are very respectable vocations. I believe that we should realize that there are many good professions that don’t require a 4 year degree. Education is a wonderful thing that alleviates many problems in the world, but we have gotten to a point in which we act as though those who get the most education are better than those who have less education. It seems that it’s the degree that matters more than what the person actually accomplishes. Many valuable jobs don’t require that degree ….. knowledge-yes …… experience…..yes….LEARNING….yes, but perhaps not the way in which we are accustomed. I’m reminded once again of Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory and the various ways in which each individual is “smart”. We have been conditioned to think about academic intelligence as the ultimate intelligence and looking at others as somehow secondary or inferior. Traditionally, schools have functioned to teach to this type of intelligence. More recently, we see more differentiated instruction, but I think we need more change to bring about a system that helps students learn what they are best at. After all, who could be “motivated and wise” in an area that their brain just doesn’t function well in. Why ignore strengths to focus on avenues that will lead to dead ends (no degree or one that doesn’t help them ) for many. Equity and access t0 appropriate education is a creed we could all adopt. In many cases, all we do is teach students to play the game. To do what it takes to get the grades to go to college and get the degree. The focus is not really on learning. They play the game and then go out and learn things that are motivating to them. If education were geared more toward individual strengths, I think students would be more motivated to learn.

I was glad to read in Solomon chapter 11 that along with learning in the 21st century, the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic are still important to master. The idea that all learners emerge as the following:

• Information seekers, analyzers, and evaluators
• Problem solvers and decision makers
• Productive and creative users of technology tools
• Communicators, collaborators, publishers, and producers
• Informed, responsible, and involved citizens (Solomon, p. 149)

The key word here is ALL.  Not all students are going to fit this criteria any more than they fit the mold of “school”  as we now conduct it.  I agree with the authors that professional development is going to have to be transformed to help teachers to utilize technology and incorporate it into the learning process as much as it is ingrained in the lives of students.  The last bullet (above) as a goal for all students is more attainable with careful consideration of the way in which each student approaches the prior ones.  For example, what motivates them to seek, analyze, and evaluate information?  They all do it, but it may not be the type of information seeking that “we” see as productive.  They solve problems and make decisions and if they have access to technology, they find ways to use it creatively.  Guidance and high expectations according to individual needs are important factors to be considered here.

As I was reading the first two chapters of The Children’s Machine, I was thinking about the way that I was taught calculus in college, and the way I actually learned it. I struggled with it because I was trying to make sense of all of the new concepts and ideas of calculus that are so unlike the concepts of arithmetic and algebra. It wasn’t until I was well into my physics studies that I started “getting” calculus. I got it because I realized what Newton was trying to do in determining the motion of the planets and the nature of gravity here on earth. This made it clear to me why we needed a way of measuring the rate of change of parabolic and other non-straight line curves associated with gravity, and why we needed a new type of math to analyze it. I, too. very interested in understanding the physical universe, and I realized that calculus was the tool needed to achieve this.

Later, when I was preparing to be a teacher, I decided that I would teach calculus this way. Although I liked math, I knew that many students didn’t, and they needed a more interesting reason to learn it than just for a required credit. I felt that if we followed Newton’s path, and diverted our attention as he did from the wonder of the universe to the laborious task of developing a math that uses limits that approach infinity, we would see that calculus is a necessary tool that we need to learn about this world around us.

As it turned out, I was never able to teach anything more than algebra and geometry. I tried talking about Pythagoras in the way I would have talked about Newton, but it never went over too well with the type of students I had in public school and the ones I have now in the correctional setting. This leads to the dilemma that all teachers face: How do we get kids to want to learn? Papert has a lot of good ideas, as do the many other educators I have read and studied, but I feel that if this desire to learn isn’t there (for whatever reason) by high school, then there is not much a teacher can do to instill it at this point. We can usually motivate these kids by telling them that they need this stuff to get their diploma or their vocational certification, but it all comes down to just learning enough to pass a test.

We have had a few kids at our school who are very talented in art, particularly in drawing. It is easy for our art teacher to “empower” them to learn what they want and to develop themselves as artists. When they get to us academic teachers, however, they must do the prescribed schooling required to get their diploma or GED because, as they are told, they won’t go very far as an artist without that piece of paper. It would be difficult for me to let them go in their own direction to learn math because they lack many skills that they should already have and they need to learn a pre-determined list of things to pass the test. So, as usual, they leave the fun art room to come to my boring math room, and I tell them to get this stuff down so they can go out there and do their art.

In The Children’s Machine, Papert asks the question, “Why, through a period when so much human activity has been revolutionized, have we not seen comparable change in the way we help our children learn?” (p. 2)  He shares a parable in which time travelers, including surgeons and teachers from 100 years before visit their respective work sites.  Papert believes that while the surgeons would be amazed at the vast differences in the field of medicine, the teachers would not see that the classroom had changed all that much and would be able to step right in and take over the class.  I agree that educational practices and philosophies have not changed that much, however, I would argue that the culture has changed a great deal.  I don’t think teachers from 100 years ago would be able to step right in.  They would be appalled at the lack of discipline and the low expectations place on the students.  The lack of respect for the teacher would be seen as intolerable.  So, what am I saying here?  I’m trying to figure that out myself.  What I’m coming up with is that education has not changed with the culture.  The behavior of students today is not like it was 100 years ago and that is not going to change.  We shouldn’t waste our time trying to make the students fit the mold of 100 years ago.  It won’t happen.  Papert goes on to say that if the teachers in the parable visited the homes of the students, they would be amazed at the amount of effort by the students into learning video games.  I think I am left with more questions than answers.  It is true that schools are not reaching all students and change is necessary.  Questions?

How can we use the technology students are so familiar with to help them learn what is essential?

Can we let students determine their own direction for learning?

What would Megachange look like?

As far as the first question, I had a class last semester called, “Educational Games and Simulations”  We learned how these tools could be used in the classroom to achieve learning goals. This is a good start and we should use these tools.  However, it is difficult to find and use games for every learning goal.  Even if we could do that, we would not want to use the same method for everything.  In addition, there are still some students who would be “turned off” by these methods of learning.

Student directed learning probably means different things to different people.  At first glance, it seems like “anything goes”.  However, if the learning goals were agreed upon, perhaps students could take a self-directed approach in achieving those goals.

Megachange? More than likely, the educational system will change gradually.  I actually think we are in a process of change.  It won’t happen all at once and when it does happen slowly, it doesn’t appear to be as great.

Maybe, if we change the way we “do”education, we could spend more time on learning than on trying to manage a classroom and deal with disciplinary issues.  I believe that, however, I also think that requiring students to show respect even when they don’t feel like it is an important learning goal.   Modeling and showing mutual respect is as an important part of education as anything else and is more important than content.  To quote an art teacher friend of mine….”I teach kids how to live, then I teach them art.”

I actually liked reading the Papert book. It was much more readable and interesting than the Solomon book. As a math teacher, however, I was humbled to learn the origin of the word “mathematics” (and ashamed that I had never explored it) and to realize that those first mathematicians thought that math was the only real thing to learn.

I agree that the art or science of learning does need to be given the same status as pedagogy, and that it does deserve its own name. I guess “mathetics” is a good enough word, although it sounds like “pathetic”. ( I always thought that “pedagogy” sounded strange, too.) As I was reading this, I thought about all of the learning theories that we covered in our education classes, and why he wouldn’t consider them as mathetics. I thought it was funny that he said that these are just “watching a rat run through a maze”. He even admitted to writing one of these books also.

Chapter 14 in the Solomon book was very hard for me to follow. In thinking about the critical factors of assessing educational equity, I found the first full paragraph on page 203 to be the most significant passage in the chapter. The author says that meaningfulness is as important an issue as physical access. I take this to mean that if the program isn’t something that the student can relate to or make sense of, then it might as well be inaccessible. I fully agree with this.

This makes me think of the state-wide technology program that our correctional facility school  in Ohio will be implementing in the near future.  All of our students will receive their instruction through computer software that follows the state content standards. Their assignments and tests will be monitored  in Columbus so that the bureaucrats can determine whether the student is getting the content he is supposed to be getting. As our text says, the only evaluation made here will be who is or is not learning. No consideration will be given as to whether or not the instructional method is meeting the needs of the individual student.

I read the Silicon Ceiling and while I see the concern about the gender gap in digital production access, I don’t really agree that it has the grave consequences that are stated. Yes, I agree that women should have equal access to careers and that it is imperative for them to have equity in compensation for work done. Single parent families headed by women are prevalent in our society and when women are prepared with education such as that in computer and information systems, it is very likely that they will be able to support themselves and their children adequately no matter where they are. A direct quote from the article states:

“[I]t’s definitely worth it. The freedom that you have, knowing that no matter what happens I can support my family, I can take care of myself, I can make my own way in the world is absolutely worth it.“(Silicon Ceilings: Information Technology Equity, the Digital Divide and the Gender Gap among Information Technology Professionals, Andrea M. Matwyshyn)

These are good goals and everyone wants all families to be successful. I think, rather than having government incentives for specific fields, there should be more energy put into helping students understand various careers and perhaps spend time experiencing what is done in a particular job. Exposure to various fields and having positive role models in those fields would be the best incentives.

I can understand the concern that when IT is a male dominated field, the production of technology has inherent biases that potentially have a negative impact on society, however, I just don’t think the solution to the gender gap is to coerce people into fields they may not enjoy, nor do I think they should be encouraged in that direction only because the money is good.

In my opinion, the lack of equity (the haves and have nots) in access is much more of an issue than the gender gap in production.

I watched the video of Danah Boyd discussing her experiences with high school students across the country.  It was a very interesting discussion.  It highlights the extreme speed at which technology is changing and thus changing our culture.  I have to admit that, not too long ago (less than a year), I pretty much chastised my son for being so in tune with his my space and face book.  He is in his second year of medical school and I remember making the comment to him that things on sites like that could come back to haunt him.  Of course, he was pretty incredulous at my stereotypical view of the sites.  It’s interesting how my own views have changed.  I still believe that much of the interchange on these sites by high school students is filled with unprofitable, potentially hurtful words, content, etc., but Danah Boyd made a good point in that they are really no different than the way teenagers have always been.  They’re just hangin’ out in a different place.

Among the many significant points she made, the point about how the Internet is just a common part of life now was something that really made sense.  She said that older people talk about “getting online”  while being online is more of a fluid thing for young people.  They move freely within the online environment,  coming and going without a thought.  We have to be careful in thinking that this is true, however, of all young people.  It seems that way, but there are young people who don’t have continual access.  These students will be “left behind” unless their access becomes more equitable.