I just read an article from the New York Times that had been tweeted about a fair bit. The headline pulled me in… A Silicon Valley School That Doesn’t Compute, by Matt Richtel.
The article focuses on a Waldorf School in Silicon Valley that keeps its classrooms screen-free, and touches on the apparent irony of so many tech industry professionals sending their children to learn in such an environment. Through conversations with parents, students, educators and references to various studies, Richtel uses the school to frame a discussion around the opposing perspectives and practices of schools that immerse kids in technology, to those like this one, that keep the power switched off.
Some rights reserved by Sammy0716, via Flickr.com
In supporting their choice of the Waldorf school, and condemning alternatives, many of the parents interviewed make claims regarding how they see no need for technology in classrooms, no value added in the use of these tools, and that the ability to use tech tools is something that their children will have plenty of time to pick up later in life.
As an alternative, the author lists a range of multiple intelligence style learning engagements that see students eating their way through fractions, or zapping at times tables like human lightning bolts. At one point, Richtel writes that:
“Advocates for equipping schools with technology say computers can hold students’ attention and, in fact, that young people who have been weaned on electronic devices will not tune in without them.”
I would be quite curious to see further study on this latter point. I’ve had some experiences that affirm the statement, with some digitally-weaned students hesitant to engage in research using printed texts. Conversely, I’ve witnessed students tiring very quickly of reading enhanced books off the iPad, and preferring to return to printed text for pleasure.
My students share an "enhanced book" on the iPad.
What I react to strongest here is the absolutist approach of both sides in the way this debate is being framed. I feel it really misses the point as to where the most value is added with tech integration in education, or the use of any tools for that matter. I have no doubt that tech tools can be poorly, and overly used in a classroom setting. And, I certainly don’t deny that the approach taken in the Waldorf lessons described above is a good one – teaching to multiple intelligences is just a part of good teaching.
My students, deeply involved in reading for pleasure.
My contention is that anyone who presumes that throwing a bunch of technology at schools makes for quality education is missing the point as much as anyone who forbids its use. The best uses of tech tools, as with any tools, are those that use the tool to accomplish a task that would have been impossible, or much less efficient, without it. If you play with a hammer long enough you’ll probably find that it’s pretty good for hitting things, and you’ll likely reach for it the next time something needs some hitting. If you play with Photoshop long enough you’ll probably find that it’s pretty good for editing, altering and re-imagining images. I bet you’ll know when to reach for it too. The fallacy of the all or nothing approach is apparent in the parent’s argument that: “The idea that an app on an iPad can better teach my kids to read or do arithmetic, that’s ridiculous.” If what you’re using an iPad to do is limited to supporting reading and arithmetic, you’re still looking at it as a replacement for previous tools, instead of an opportunity to create meaning and learning in new and different ways.
The Hammer: A pretty good tool for hitting things. Photo by: Markus Wichmann, some rights reserved. Via flickr.com.
Tech tools are often complex and extendable, and ways to creatively expand their range of uses are what eventually makes them compelling. That’s where artistry and expertise comes into the use of many tools, both analogue and digital.
The articles talks about how there’s plenty of time to learn to search with Google later in life, but I would contend that any curriculum that focuses largely on how to conduct Google searches is a pretty shallow one. One that uses finely tuned Google searches as a way to efficiently and precisely locate, navigate and facilitate the critique of a wide range of media, as a way to build literacy and critical evaluative skills is one that’s taking advantage of the scope of the tools. Learning engagements like this don’t come from just having computers in school, nor do they come from banning their use. It’s frustrating when debates such as this one are framed in such black and white, with-us-or-against-us extremes. Anything that claims to always be true, is always incorrect. Or… Almost always.
12 Responses to Does Not Compute! Or, why absolutism misses the point.
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to Many Hats...
many hats by Jamie Raskin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
WELCOME TO MANY HATS
Thank you for sharing this article and your views. I agree that there is no ONE educational philosophy or system that suits everyone. I have met parents who are thrilled to have sent their children to a Waldorf school, and others who were not so happy.
When discussing the most important aspect of a child’s education, parents and teachers (should?) focus on the right “fit” between the institution’s educational philosophy, curricula, and delivery style with the child’s aspirations and interests.
If some children prefer to read a traditional book, that’s great. If others choose to read the same story on a Kindle, that is fine too. But how to analyze and deliver the findings of the content of the book in class, is more important than where they get the information. We need to understand the impetus behind the use of technology in education, to make sure that we are focusing on the benefits of using said technology, and not just bringing it into the classroom for the sake of using more machines.
Thanks for your thoughts Machiko!
I agree with you. I suppose, like anything else in education, it’s about authenticity. If you have a purpose for practicing and learning a process, it works. When I think about my own education, I recall very little in the way of explicit purposes for what we were learning to do. Definitely, I recall that in the classroom where i did my teacher practicum, there were three old computers that just sat there waiting to take an hour to turn on during “free time”. A total mismanagement of resources. Before I had spent time in there the teacher hadn’t usually let students use them at all for fear of what websites they may find. Really useless.
I understand that we may well learn at some point that developmentally use of some technologies at certain ages conflicts with the development of other physical, mental and emotional skills, but until I have conclusive evidence of that, the blanket vendettas against any sort of learning tool seem ridiculous.
Cheers! Jamie
I read this article and felt that both edtech believers and Waldorf School supporters must have felt the author didn’t understand their educational philosophy.I read this article and grew frustrated with the idea that technology as a tool isn’t beneficial to students. Just as knitting needles and knives for cutting apples into fractional parts are tools, tech tools play a role in our classroom. And your description of how tools should be used in a classroom (and how difficult it can be) should be read by people who think we are only throwing machines at the students. Thanks!
Interesting…
Thanks Rebekah, I hadn’t thought about how the Waldorf school supporters might equally feel misunderstood by this perspective. You may well be right. What I do find a bit odd is that the author is clearly a tech writer, looking at his string of articles, but does seem to position the Waldorf absolutism in a positive light. Did you find this as well? I took a quick look at some of the comments from Waldorf supporters on the Times site, and found that they were all quite positive about the article’s arguments. Is the Waldorf system, I wonder, completely philosophically opposed to tech in the classroom, or is that just the interpretation of this one institute. I wonder…
Thanks for the comment!
Jamie
For me, when I read this article I immediately fast forwarded the picture to college. I wondered what it would be like to come out of that school when all of a sudden be thrown into a pool of other students who had years of practice with technologies I had only experienced in nonacademic settings. In some ways I think it might resemble language acquisition, whereby students would have the appearance of ability but not the refined skills necessary to use technology effectively for learning. At the same time, I don’t think there is value in students graduating who are missing some of the more real-time skills that occur away from technology. Why is moderation so challenging for some to accept? Thanks so much for this post.
That’s interesting… So would you say that it’s the long term exposure, the extended time spent working with a language or set of technologies, that creates the deeper understanding of ways to use it? Or is it about the nature of instruction? Both? Thanks for the comment!
Ah Jamie, always good to hear your perspective as we seem to have some similar ideas. Absolutism is wrong absolutely.
That doesn’t sound right somehow.
Yes, the style of writing, even with many articles about tech integration in the classroom that I largely agree with, often appears written as though what they are saying is indisputable. Balance is the thing. It may sound overly simple but I stand by it.
Thanks for so eloquently shining light on this troubling trend.
Sean
Cheers Sean. Thanks for the comment. See you soon!
I think the point here is balance…
Tech is fine… its a tool..I love it.. I have FB, a blog, I LOVE TED talks and my iTunes.. You Tube.. I love BrainPop for teaching.. you name it.. I love it..
But it’s being overused and misused in many places..
At my school… kids spend 5 hours/month playing outdoors in natural areas…
How do I know that? I did a time use survey…
At the same time.. they spend 5+hours/PER DAY on technology…
There is no balance in that from my perspective..
They have a ‘week without walls’… and 51 weeks in malls, air con classrooms, cars going to and from those places…
Sure.. use tech.. but also know when not to use it.. and unplug your kids and go outside.. as far as I can see, thats not happening in too many places..
Many of us grew up playing outdoors.. we know when to say when.. but our students are not connected to Nature.. how can they be when they are outside 5 hours a month?
Their baseline and point of reference has shifted… they no longer see Nature and outdoors as the point of reference for play, creativity and fun!
I think they will see digital media and technology as their baseline reference.. it’s what they will turn to when they have time..
What’s the harm in that?
Well, if you are not outside immersed in Nature.. you cannot be connected to Nature.. if you are not connected you will not care.. and if you don’t care then you will not take care of it.. there will be no conservation or outdoor recreation ethic instilled in their worldview and lifestyle..
And tech is a poor substitute for the real and tangible world we can experience outside laying in a creek, hiking up a hillside or swimming above a coral reef..
I am afraid we can’t deny our biology and dependence on the natural world… nor our affinity for it.. not for long anyway..
Do this: Do not believe me or trust me.
Survey your kids.. find out how much time they spend outdoors playing in a natural area.. do some research on the benefits of kids playing outdoors in natural spaces.. (I have tons of research on this if anyone wants it.. earthmattersinfo@gmail.com)
Compare this to how much time they spend on technology.. and see for yourself.. then decide if there is balance..
What I would like to see in an honest and genuine discussion about balance between tech time & outdoor nature time at staff meetings, in admin meetings, at conferences..
But here at my school.. we are all about 1 to 1 laptops.. GoogleEverything.. our fields and play areas are artificial turf.. and PE has been limited and shortened and the day lengthened.. but no one has asked if we can go outside and play..
I think it would be cool if we could romp around outside once in a great while.. without any standards or benchmarks.. no plans.. no outcomes.. and no direction..
Lemme know what you find out!
-Kenny
Wow. That’s a contrast isn’t it. I think I might try to do a survey… We do have a data handling study coming up. Maybe we’ll do the study in the park!
I wonder about ways to bridge some this too. Obviously directed outdoor play can’t possibly replace unstructured exploration and play, but I would like to see a range of ways we can use technology, and the appeal of it, to facilitate the exploration and study of wild places. Certainly there are a lot of smart phone apps that would add to this. I have a very cool tree identification app that I take waaaay too much pleasure from. Interesting.
Thanks for the comment Kenny!
[…] Tulley‘s TED Talk: 5 Dangerous Things You Should Let Your Kids Do. Gever is the founder of The Tinkering School I mentioned above. It’s an institution that he describes as a place for kids to go and work […]
[…] this interview on CBC Radio, at about the 3 minute mark, Josh talks for a bit about his remixing the sounds of […]