| I've been asked to address the so-called technology gap between low-income school districts and their more affluent neighbors. I'll attempt to do this from the only three perspectives from which I feel qualified to report: that of a worker (as in blue collar), a practicing scientist , and an educator. Bearing this multiple perspective in mind, here are my concerns on this subject.
First, this gap should come as no surprise to anyone. It is the same distance that has always been kept between the "haves" and the "have nots." It's just that, as the level of technological complexity grows by leaps and bounds, so does the chasm between the privileged and the not-so-privileged. I'm not saying, "don't despair, it's all right" - because it's not. But let's focus on the true source of our justifiable despair.
|
...these problems are as much caused by the rise in digital technology as they are likely to be cured by it.
|
Literacy, mathematical prowess, study skills, critical thinking capacity, basic content area knowledge, length of attention spans, and the ability to follow simple directions seem to be at an all-time low. They also seem to be continuing to spiral rapidly downward every time someone pulls out a yard stick, however crude (such as standardized test scores), in an attempt to measure them. This trend is not unique to lower-income school districts, by the way. It is an "across-the-board" phenomenon.
What I am about to suggest, heretically enough, is that these problems are as much caused by the rise in digital technology (because, after all, when we say 'technology', we’re really talking about computers, and computer-based devices, aren't we?) as they are likely to be cured by it.
I have, for example, reviewed a great deal of science software and I've entered quite a few scientific web sites, and I have been rudely awakening. Far better than half of these are in some way substandard, ranging from honest but flawed, attempts at conveying information, to shamelessly pointless and scientifically-out-of-touch atrocities. The later suffer miserably on three fronts: accuracy of content with respect to both factual details and basic conceptual framework, relevance to the subject, and accessibility of information.
On the first front, it is often all-too-painfully clear that those attempting to enlighten the user have a somewhat less than firm grasp of the subject themselves (how can one teach what one doesn't understand one’s self??). In the second catergory, there is as much inclusion of material not pertinent to the understanding of the immediate subject as there is omission of material essential to it.
|
A picture may, in some cases, be worth a thousand words, but there must be some reason we progressed from paintings, on cave walls, to the written language.
|
All of which serves only to clutter the conceptual landscape, leaving more intellectual stumbling blocks than footholds. In the third category, the very user-friendliness that is supposed to entice and engage the audience is often so busy and gaudy as to bombard the senses to the degree that the message gets lost in the delivery. Where once the instructional material was generally (with many notable exceptions!) so dry and lifeless as to bore the reader to sleep , it is now attended by so many "bells and whistles" that the latter serves more to distract the reader from the information in the text than to enhance or underscore it. In fact, the pictorial items often become so pervasive that they begin to compete with each other, causing the eye (and the concentration) to leap haphazardly all over the page.
This disturbing trend has even spilled over into most of the current textbooks where one begins to get the distinct impression that the text is there to provide little more than captions for the graphics. So much for working toward raising the literacy levels among our students (and ourselves!). A picture may, in some cases, be worth a thousand words but there must be some reason we progressed from paintings on cave walls to the written language. Or perhaps we'd prefer to raise a generation of trained automatons clicking on icon after icon like the chickens and rats of B. F. Skinner's research, opening and closing windows within windows, within windows until we can't even see through them anymore.
All of which brings me back to the point that our educational system is not failing for lack of computers, but for (a) lack of proper application of what they can do and (b) deification and blind belief in what they can them. Shouldn't we allot a portion of our school district budgets to computer hardware, software, and Internet access? Of course. But my word of caution is to be very critical of what you're buying, just as you would with textbooks or other educational materials. Each potential purchase requires the close scrutiny of someone who knows what they're looking for. Don't be fooled by the bloated myth that all that's digitized is accurate and substantial. This is no truer for digital materials than it is for printed ones. We should not judge software by its packaging, nor Internet sites by their web pages anymore than we should judge a book by its cover.
Here are some things we (the extended educational system, including parents and community members as well as teachers and administrators) need at least as much as more computers:
Accountability – It's time to start holding the technocrats accountable for the wares they peddle and stop allowing them to hold our children hostage in cyberspace where all "reality" is virtual and all "intelligence," artificial. It's time for us to stop allowing them to hide behind their (digital) smoke and (electronic) mirrors. It's time for us to rise, as parents and teachers and take the helm. The media and software providers are not our leaders. It's our money that makes them think so (or actually grants them that position). We need to take the primary share of the right to (and the responsibility for) the education of our children back into our own hands. The media and technology are our tools – not vice versa!
|
|
The media and technology are our tools - not vice versa!
|
Staff fortification – Just as sorely needed is more of an influx of experts from other fields to fortify the ranks of the teaching profession. We can't make it on pedagogy alone. We have to know something (more than those we're teaching, at least!) about the subject matter we are teaching! How else are we to evaluate the rafts and rafts of educational materials that are floated by us every school year? How else are we to make critical comparisons and informed decisions as to textbooks and materials to be adopted or otherwise integrated into our curricula and lesson plans, either school-wide or on an individual (classroom-per-classroom) basis? How else are we going to be able to tell the difference between media-candy and educationally-nourishing fare? It’s time for the technocratic elite to have to answer to those with expertise in the content areas and to those whose expertise lies in teaching and writing (that is, expertise in conveying the ideas/concepts/messages/information of the content areas). It's time for these three groups to collaborate (not compete) in the educational process. Each has its place.
Quality Control – This is a term borrowed from the industry. It means that we need to consider the quality of the education being provided, not just the quantity (e.g., instructional minutes per day, days per quarter, length of school year). This requires two basic elements. The first consists of what the authorities alluded to above: professionals from other professions, writers who are actually literate, teachers who are attentive to the needs (which are not necessarily the wants) of their students, and parents who take the education of their students as seriously as we expect educators to take their jobs. The second element is that these authorities need to spend time examining the educational process: observing what does and doesn't work, strengthening or cutting out teaching tools or practices wherever necessary, assessing student progress (by more than grades and standardized test scores), and planning for further instruction. This second element integrates all the components of effective education: from teacher-directed instruction to cooperative learning/group work, from classroom discussion to laboratory or field investigation/experimentation, from overhead transparencies to xerographic copies, from videos to audio recordings, from manipulatives to software, from actual artifacts to guest speakers, from field trips to textbooks, from library visits to the Internet. All aspects of education must be integrated into a functional and manageable system.
Proposal writers – We need to remember that there are funds available for almost every aspect of education - we just need to know (a) where they are (i.e., from whom they'll come) and (b) how to go about requesting them. In this respect, what we need far more than more computers are proposal writers (experts in locating funds and formally requisitioning them). It's not about just being able to present a sound program and asking the right people! There are specific formats and standardized procedures one must go through to acquire these funds. It's about knowing exactly how to ask (what forms to file, how to format proposals) as much as who to ask or what to ask for. I can't emphasize this need strongly enough. Every school site needs to either (a) hire at least one individual with such expertise or (b) enroll at least one of their current employees in a course or courses that will enlighten them as to proper proposal-writing procedures.
|
As it works for the arm and the wrench, so it also goes for the mind and the computer. The tool cannot do the job alone. It needs us far more than we need it. We must help it help us.
|
Basic survival skills – A final consideration is that of technology-induced intellectual atrophy. This is an easily demonstrable phenomenon, a fact of educational life, if you will. Simply put, the more we rely on devices to help us find our answers, the less-equipped we become to come up with those answers ourselves. I am not suggesting that we shouldn't develop and utilize extensions of ourselves (tools) to help us perform our jobs. What I am trying to say is that we should not allow ourselves to become slaves to our devices. We should wield the tools - the tools shouldn't wield us! And if developing critical thinking and communication skills (along with a strong ethical code) are not the bottom line of any educational system, then that system is not doing its job, period! One does not have to squint too hard to picture a day in the not-too-distant future when the per capita intellectual fitness of our population closely approaches the sad state of our collective physical fitness. A day when our mental labor-saving devices allow us to become as flabby of mind as our physical labor-saving machinery has allowed us to become flabby of body. Can you envision a day when we flock to mental gyms to "work out"' because we’ve lost our intellectual fitness and stamina? When those of us laboring in low-tech, menial positions are more literate, clever, wise, and intellectually alive than our electronically mesmerized and icon-conditioned superiors? When the latest in a long line of educational Messiahs fails to deliver on the promise(s) of bringing salvation and enlightenment to the masses, forgiveness of past mistakes and a guiding beacon for the future because we expected all this to occur magically with no effort(s) our own?
In summary, let's be sure, by all means, to include the computer among the tools in our workshop, but let us never forget that, as is the case with all tools, it is just an extension of our own intellect. We must still take responsibility in applying it judiciously. If you'll permit me to lapse into a parting physical analogy: It is true that you could never remove the tightly-fastened bolts that hold your car together with your bare fingers. That's why we have wrenches, which are extensions of our hands; devices to help maximize what forces our muscles can apply. But the wrench can no more remove the bolts without the muscle of the arm that wields it than the arm could without the aid of the wrench. As it works for the arm and the wrench, so it also goes for the mind and the computer. The tool cannot do the job alone. It needs us far more than we need it. We must help it help us.
|
