Tag Archives: technology

Is Smart Technology Making Us Dumb?

Technology, , , , , ,

How technology will affect humanity is a topic discussed often in education circles, as well as the supermarket, the subway, at PTA, and almost anywhere people gather. Intelligence Squared U.S. recently sponsored a debate on the statement: Smart Technology Is Making Us Dumb

The debaters who agreed with the statement were Nicholas Carr, author of The Glass Cage: Automation and Us and Andrew Keen, executive director of FutureCast. Debating against were David Weinberger, senior researcher at Harvard  and Genevieve Bell, anthropologist and VP at Intel Corp. All of the debaters are well-known figures in the technology or “anti-technology world.”

Both sides argued so persuasively that according to a poll of the audience afterwards the debate was declared a tie. The team supporting the statement cited studies showing that people who use technology consistently, experience cognitive overload, and the inability to process real learning. They may stop trying to learn and become dependent on technology. In one study, researchers recommended removing technology from airplane cockpits because it prevented pilots from learning how to fly on their own in crisis situations.

The other side cited that technology has eliminated “the gatekeepers,” largely elite white men who limited access to knowledge. They talked about global access in developing countries and how it has helped in the recent earthquake in Nepal and the Ebola outbreak in Africa.  Weinberger said to the opposing team:

…even if you’re right about everything you said, I think it’s undeniable that this is the greatest time in human history to be wanting to know…access to information has never been this free…you don’t have to be at a major university to get access to a wide range. The ability to engage — not just read…not even just to explore, to follow your interests where they go, by following links, and finding people who know things that you don’t…

In many ways, the debaters were talking apples and oranges. Those who argued that tech didn’t make us dumber were talking about it as a tool, something that gives us access to greater communication and information. The side saying it made us dumb were arguing that it doesn’t matter, because after we use it for a while we won’t know what to do with that access.

The reality is we need both lines of thinking because technology is here to stay. The train has left the station, so to speak.  If you don’t get on, you’ll be left behind. But we need to be more than passive passengers. We need to figure out how to control it, how to make it go where we want it to go, and how to stop it if need be.

We can’t let technology’s speed, openness, and potential seduce us into thinking that everything to do with it is good for us. It is our responsibility to continue the debate, to examine technology’s pros and cons, and make sure that our humanity prevails so that generations of the 21st century have a better chance of learning to use rather than be used by technology.

Education Models Evolve

Technology, , , , , , ,

In Audrey Watters’ essay, The Invented History of ‘The Factory Model of Education,’ she provides an insightful analysis of recent statements by respected leaders for change in education. According to them, the Western education system is based on an outdated factory model stemming from industrialization and consequently, it needs to be replaced. Watters makes a cogent argument that this assumption is untrue based on historical facts.

I agree. It is true that the goals and maybe even the mechanics  of industrialization became intertwined with American education by the late 20th century.  But it took a long time to standardize the system.  For example, in 19th century rural America, the major purpose of multi-age one-room schoolhouses (about 200,000 of them) was to make people feel more connected to an emerging nation, to teach them the responsibilities of living in a democratic society. There was no resemblance to industrialization.

During Reconstruction, schooling was very important to African Americans; learning to read and write had been denied them as slaves. Education was the first step towards equality. In urban areas, schooling was mostly enjoyed by the elite until child-labor laws were seriously enforced in the 1920’s and 30’s allowing working-class children to take full advantage of public education. Until then, most children were “industrialized” through apprenticeships and early work years, not schools.

Watters cautions:

We tend to not see automation today as mechanization as much as algorithmization–the promise and potential in artificial intelligence and virtualization, as if this magically makes these new systems of standardization and control lighter and liberatory.

And so too we’ve invented a history of the “factory model of education” in order to justify an “upgrade”–to new software and hardware that will do much of the same thing schools have done for generations now, just (supposedly) more efficiently, with control moved out of the hands of labor (teachers) and into the hands of a new class of engineers, out of the realm of the government and into the realm of the market.

In other words, just because we have a new format in technology does not mean that its content will set us free. Accredited education will always involve the passing on of societal values and goals.

However, I would not be so quick to say that with technology solutions teachers will be replaced as education influencers. Many EdTech startups are depending on teachers to create content and pedagogy that work in digital programs.

We need engineers and instructional designers to lead in technology. Developers admit that they are far from creating education technology that is scalable—cost- and learning- effective. They want to work with educators and government agencies to “make it happen.”

How we educate students and who has control will depend on how well experienced educators, technology experts, and government agencies can collaborate for the common good—an old but still valid concept.  Let’s not allow the high speed of technology push any of us into premature interpretations, predictions, and solutions. Let’s not jump from the exaggerated gloom and doom interpretations of the past to gloom and doom predictions for the future.

Extrinsic Versus Intrinsic Motivation

Education Strategy, , , , , ,

Educating students in school relies on motivating them to learn. Studies and discussions on the meaning, application, and benefits of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation are happening as digital programs are created and instructors are incorporating them into their curriculums.

Very broadly, extrinsic motivation comes from outside in the form of stimuli or rewards such as ranking, salary, badges, and praise. Intrinsic motivation is prompted by inner feelings such as curiosity, need for belonging, and satisfaction. How extrinsic and intrinsic motivation can sometimes relate to each other is the moral of a story that has made the rounds in psychology circles for years:

A group of children go every day after school to chant anti-Semitic remarks in front of a store owned by a Jewish man. One day the man comes out to the children and says, “This is what you call yelling? I can hardly hear you. If you promise to yell more loudly, I will pay you each a dime.”

The children accept and every day, after they yell for a while, the store owner gives each a dime. After about two weeks, the store owner comes out and says, “You’ve been doing a great job; but business has been bad lately, and I can only pay you each a nickel.” The children protest, but they accept the reduced payment.

After another couple of weeks,  the store owner comes out to say, “I’m sorry, but I can’t afford you anymore. You’re welcome to continue, but I won’t be able to pay you.” The children reply, “You think we are going to do this for nothing? No way,” and they never come back again.

What has happened here? The intrinsic motivation of fun or satisfaction, (no matter how twisted) that spurred the children to act in the first place was replaced by extrinsic motivation (money) and when the external reward disappeared, so did the original intrinsic motivation. This is a simplistic analysis, but the point is clear: Be careful with extrinsic rewards.

Schools have already tied learning to extrinsic rewards: grades, test scores, medals, badges, diplomas. Isn’t that enough? These rewards have robbed many students of a love of learning. We can’t let that continue.

The world of phenomenal change that we live in makes lifelong learning more important than ever. Ditto for intrinsic motivation. We need to make sure that students desire learning without all the bells and whistles.

In the past, a higher education graduate could choose a career and plan to thrive in it through experience and some professional development. Now, we are expected to learn new technologies and ways to communicate every year. Instructors are expected to integrate technology as they teach.

The best preparation for success is knowing how to learn and to want to keep learning. Creating a deep consonance between internal satisfaction and learning in students will ensure that they are able to initiate and navigate the changes at the core of 21st century life.

For a more data-based scientific explanation of how extrinsic motivation can ruin intrinsic motivation see “Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation in Education: Reconsidered Once Again” by Deci, Koestner, and Ryan.