Grab our RSS Feed

Back to Basics: Resisting the Allure of Technology in the Classroom

by The Editor


“Bill Gates says, ‘Wait till you can see what your com­puter can become.’ But it’s you who should be doing the becom­ing. What you can become is the mir­a­cle you were born to work — not the damn fool com­puter.” —Kurt Von­negut

“To go into soli­tude, a man needs to retire as much from his cham­ber as from soci­ety.” —Ralph Waldo Emerson

Last semes­ter I picked up a $1,000 check from City Col­lege for a fac­ulty devel­op­ment work­shop that I par­tic­i­pated in over the win­ter break. The work­shop was designed to intro­duce inter­ested fac­ulty to the uses of tech­nol­ogy in the class­room and was, no sur­prise, spon­sored by Ver­i­zon. As a strug­gling grad­u­ate stu­dent who finds him­self con­sis­tently behind on the rent, I was delighted to receive the money, but part of me feels bad (well almost) since it turns out I really have no inten­tion now, nor did I ever, really, of using any more tech­nol­ogy in my class­room than I nor­mally would. In fact, instead of instill­ing in me a sense of pos­si­bil­ity and excite­ment, the work­shop made me deeply sus­pi­cious of the sup­posed ped­a­gog­i­cal value of tech­nol­ogy in gen­eral. Although it helped me real­ize that there are, indeed, sev­eral kinds of fas­ci­nat­ing and inter­est­ing things you can do with web appli­ca­tions both in and out of class, I remained uncon­vinced that using those tech­nolo­gies would actu­ally help my stu­dents to bet­ter learn the things that mat­ter: how to be, for instance, a thought­ful and con­tem­pla­tive per­son capa­ble of for­mu­lat­ing, ana­lyz­ing, cri­tiquing, and com­mu­ni­cat­ing dif­fi­cult and orig­i­nal ideas.

The leader of the work­shop was, I am quite proud to say, an old stu­dent of mine from Hunter Col­lege who is now get­ting his PhD at the Grad­u­ate Cen­ter and is the head of the Writ­ing Cen­ter at my cam­pus. For the entire eight hours, he led the fac­ulty mem­bers present that day through a series of exer­cises that were meant to intro­duce us to web-based appli­ca­tions that we could use to “help stu­dents learn.” While I was famil­iar with most of the appli­ca­tions and plat­forms that were being intro­duced, I had never thought of using any of them in the class­room. From Google and Wikipedia, to YouTube, Flickr, Twit­ter, Word­Press, and Face­book, we talked about the poten­tial ped­a­gog­i­cal value of these var­i­ous infor­ma­tion, pub­lish­ing, and social net­work­ing plat­forms. It was a stretch, but we did our best to artic­u­late the dif­fer­ent ways we might use these pro­grams or ser­vices in our class­rooms. The idea of using blogs and Face­book pages was espe­cially pop­u­lar, as was the idea of using YouTube videos as learn­ing tools.

After the work­shop I felt oblig­ated to think more about the ways that I could use some of this tech­nol­ogy to help my stu­dents learn bet­ter, and, since I had to write a report on pre­cisely that sub­ject in order to qual­ify for the stipend, I spent a good amount of time con­tem­plat­ing my options. The more I wrote and the more I reflected on my thoughts, how­ever, the more I real­ized that I didn’t want to use any tech­nol­ogy in my class­room: not this semes­ter, not next, and if I could help it, not ever. In fact, the more I tried to jus­tify and find a place for tech­nol­ogy, the more I kept think­ing about what was being lost. Sure, show­ing a YouTube video is a fine way to gen­er­ate con­ver­sa­tion, but it is the con­ver­sa­tion, and not the act of watch­ing a video that really mat­ters, and in an Eng­lish class, where the sub­ject is lan­guage itself, does it really make sense to show a video? Tech­nol­ogy, no doubt, pro­vides a vast array of new options, but do we really need more of these kinds of options, and do any of them actu­ally aid in the learn­ing process or sim­ply pro­vide us with a tem­po­rary dis­trac­tion from it? What are we sac­ri­fic­ing when we intro­duce new tech­nolo­gies into the cur­ricu­lum? And what kinds of mes­sages are we send­ing to our students?

In an age of increas­ing tech­no­log­i­cal inno­va­tion and sci­en­tific break­through it is easy to get caught up in the idea that, as edu­ca­tors, we must pre­pare our stu­dents for the brave new worlds that await them. As our lives and our rela­tion­ships with oth­ers become more and more medi­ated through the use of tech­nol­ogy, it only seems rea­son­able that we should teach our stu­dents how to use those new tech­nolo­gies to their advan­tage. To ques­tion this assump­tion, to ask why seems like a self­ish, almost churl­ish endeavor, designed to actively cheat our stu­dents out of their right to self-empowerment. Nonethe­less, once the ques­tion is asked the answers become increas­ingly complicated.

First of all, the use of this kind of tech­nol­ogy in the class­room not only assumes that it will remain a viable and use­ful tool (rather than, say, going the way of the card cat­a­log) but that the use of such tech­nolo­gies is a soci­etal good. The idea that the uni­ver­sity or acad­emy, funded by Ver­i­zon, should feel obliged to keep pace with the entre­pre­neur­ial fits of the World Wide Web, or that we should feel ashamed not to be on top of the lat­est mar­ket­ing device dis­guised as a com­mu­ni­ca­tion plat­form, seems shortsighted.

Indeed, one of the things that fright­ens me most about the often uncrit­i­cal embrace of tech­nol­ogy in the class­room is the way that it poten­tially dehu­man­izes the edu­ca­tional expe­ri­ence, where stu­dents spend more and more time both in and out of class look­ing at video screens, com­puter mon­i­tors, Black­ber­ries, and iPhones, rather than look­ing at the world around them, talk­ing to each other, or most impor­tantly, spend­ing time alone with their thoughts. Sure, con­stant e-mail, tweet­ing, tex­ting, and ironic Face­book updates may feel like mean­ing­ful com­mu­ni­ca­tion, but what’s really being com­mu­ni­cated besides a des­per­ate desire for the type of com­mu­nity that with­out the dis­tance dig­i­tal com­mu­ni­ca­tion makes pos­si­ble would already exist?

What con­cerns me most, how­ever, is not what we are intro­duc­ing into our class­rooms — after all, I admit a pref­er­ence for pol­ished, word processed doc­u­ments instead of smudgy hand­writ­ten ones — but what we might be los­ing. I’d like to make the argu­ment that, despite our increas­ingly tech­no­log­i­cal lives, or per­haps because of them, the cre­ation and con­ser­va­tion of technology-free spaces where peo­ple can, and are encour­aged, to com­mu­ni­cate face-to-face, free of dis­trac­tion, with noth­ing more than their unique tem­pera­ments and their pri­vate store of knowl­edge and elo­quence, may be more impor­tant than ever. Our stu­dents are already attention-deprived and over­loaded. The idea of forc­ing them back onto the Inter­net, espe­cially to pri­vately owned, for-profit web­sites like Face­book and YouTube, as part of their school­work, seems at best coun­ter­pro­duc­tive, and at worst incred­i­bly irre­spon­si­ble, even uneth­i­cal. Instead, shouldn’t we be encour­ag­ing our stu­dents to carve out spaces of time for them­selves that are free from the dis­trac­tions of the mar­ket and the mar­ket dri­ven pop­u­lar cul­ture that typ­i­fies the Inter­net. Shouldn’t we be encour­ag­ing them to be skep­ti­cal and crit­i­cal of this mass cul­ture, or bet­ter yet, encour­ag­ing them to ignore it com­pletely. Should we not be invit­ing them instead to think in full sen­tences; to write more than 140 char­ac­ters at a time; and to have the self reliance and self suf­fi­ciency to be alone with them­selves and their thoughts for more than the seven or eight hours they spend uncon­scious each night.

As a pro­fes­sion we seem to have thought­lessly embraced the idea of tech­nol­ogy pre­cisely because we see it as a way of mak­ing learn­ing eas­ier and more acces­si­ble for more of our stu­dents. Obvi­ously — the logic goes — our stu­dents are com­fort­able using the Inter­net and social net­work­ing tools, so why not allow them to use those skills to learn? This kind of think­ing is com­mon among instruc­tors who embrace pop­u­lar cul­ture because they think it will help their stu­dents “relate” to the course mate­r­ial. These are the same teach­ers who spend class time screen­ing Hol­ly­wood ver­sions of Shake­speare because stu­dents are sup­pos­edly inca­pable of under­stand­ing mod­ern Eliz­a­bethan Eng­lish or who teach rap lyrics or song lyrics as poetry, because it’s eas­ier for stu­dents to get the dif­fer­ence between a tenor and a vehi­cle when it’s Tupac or Bob Dylan speak­ing rather than Dylan Thomas or Langston Hughes. But our call­ing as edu­ca­tors extends beyond merely pro­vid­ing our stu­dents with oppor­tu­ni­ties to learn mate­r­ial. As edu­ca­tors we are also respon­si­ble for pro­vid­ing our stu­dents with expe­ri­ences which they would not oth­er­wise have access to, such as the expe­ri­ences that result from find­ing solu­tions to dif­fi­cult prob­lems, engaged and thought­ful con­ver­sa­tion, and col­le­gial argu­ment. But even more than this, it is impor­tant that we offer our stu­dents alter­na­tives to the kinds of expe­ri­ences pro­vided by the tech­nol­ogy of mass media. If we are going to insist on teach­ing them how to get by in the cor­po­rate world they’ve been given, we need to at least teach them that other worlds are still possible. 

More From The Editor’s Desk

Posted by The Editor on Oct 21st, 2009 and filed under From The Editor's Desk. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response by filling following comment form or trackback to this entry from your site

Leave a Reply