Readers of this blog are aware of the controversy surrounding the Gates-funded research into the uses of a device to monitor students’ and possibly teachers’ physiological reactions in the classroom. The device is called a “galvanic skin response” monitor. It would be a bracelet with wireless sensor that students would wear to measure how engaged or disengaged they are while in class. The Gates Foundation has spent $1.4 million to sponsor research on this project at Clemson, the National Commission on Time & Learning, and some other unnamed facility. The Clemson grant was described on the Gates website as part of the MET project, implying that it would be used to evaluate teachers, but the foundation said that was not correct and changed the description on the website.
There has been quite a lively discussion of this research on my blog, with a few people saying they welcomed the bracelet and the research and wanted to learn more about the physiological reactions of students, but most saying they thought this was a bad idea, for various reasons. I personally object to the Big Brother aspect of the project, as well as to the suggestion that “learning” can be measured by physiological reactions rather than by that yet-unmeasurable thing called understanding.
In a sign of the intelligence with which this project has been developed, the bracelet is referred to as “an engagement pedometer,” even though a pedometer measures steps and is not worn on the arm.
This is one teacher’s reaction. I liked it. I think you will too. Unless you are one of those who wants to measure students’ skin temperature and whatever emotional responses can be recorded on a bracelet.
As an experienced teacher who admires her students, I don’t need a bracelet to tell me when they are: bored, confused, excited, tired, interested, etc. I know them as individuals with strengths, weaknesses, aspirations and dreams. I find this insulting and another way to turn the art of teaching into an exact science that can be manned by Stepford test prep drones or teach for a while recruits. Gates continues to demean and insult the teaching profession, one he knows nothing about. Just because he is a billionaire, it is assumed he is a expert on all topics and all professions. Bill and Melinda and the rest of the faux reformers should give up three years of their lives and work on the front line teaching public school children……plan the lessons, monitor their progress, grade papers, chart the data, enrich for the talented and gifted while individualizing and differentiating for those who struggle, attend 504 meetings, PPT’s, parent conferences, district workshops. It is time for them to walk the walk and then let’s plan to talk some more about the teaching profession.
Diane
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Thanks for the criticisms of Bill and Melinda. And by the way, most Microsoft products stink. I am viewing this blog on Google Chrome, not Microsoft Internet Explorer. I create lesson plans and other classroom materials on Open Office, not MS Word. I use Gmail, not MS Hotmail. So is Bill Gates even an expert on computers?
LikeLike
“teach for a while” . . . I love it! Perfect description.
LikeLike
While I agree completely with the post, in terms of “exact science” the people who are responsible for “reforms” are not following any valid scientific method. Your blog points this out daily. This is junk science on a par with unicorns and astrology.
After teaching for awhile it became apparent that children are ecologies and utterly complex. We dishonor them and ourselves by turning them into discrete units of data.
LikeLike
Your thoughts as expressed in the second paragraph are succinctly sublime. Thank you!
LikeLike
My response to the bracelet is here.
http://open.salon.com/blog/dianasenechal/2012/06/17/the_biometric_bracelet_and_the_end_of_daydreaming
I address the invasion of privacy, the misconceptions of “engagement,” and the consequences for daydreamers. I bring up Charlotte’s Web, which has that wonderful daydreaming scene at the end of the first chapter
LikeLike
“I personally object to the Big Brother aspect of the project, as well as to the suggestion that “learning” can be measured by physiological reactions rather than by that yet-unmeasurable thing called understanding.”
The bracelets were meant to be used in coordination with videotapes to correlate moments of perceived engagement with actual moments in a lesson. The bracelet by itself is not meant to singly evaluate teachers and do suggest so it not just a straw man, but a fabrication.
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone knows exactly how the “engagement pedometers” (aka galvanic response skin monitors) will be used, but one thing is sure: They are intended to measure student engagement physiologically. Even if they are used with videotapes, they are still an intrusive measure. Who told you they would be used with videotapes? This is getting to sound more like “1984” every time someone steps up to defend this unethical invasion of children’s bodies.
As for using it for teacher evaluation, the Gates Foundation spokesperson said that there was no guarantee about how it might be used in the future. Since the grant to Clemson was made in association with the MET project (teacher evaluation), it was not hard to see a connection.
If you have information to the contrary, showing that it will never be used for teacher evaluation, feel free to share.
Diane
LikeLike
In the words you quote, Jay, I don’t see the faintest suggestion that the bracelet will not be used to evaluate teachers. In the post itself, I see no straw man.
Moreover, Debbie Robinson, a spokeswoman for Gates, has said that while there is no current plan to use the bracelets for teacher evaluation, this may happen in the future.
In any case, there’s implicit teacher evaluation here. If the point is to measure engagement, and engagement is good, and the teacher’s instruction is supposed to foster engagement, then researchers will conclude that teachers with high engagement levels are doing something right (and those with low engagement levels, something wrong). That’s part of the logic of the research, as I understand it. From there it’s just a little step to explicit use in evaluations. (And even if the researchers have a nuanced view of the matter, by the time it makes it into the evaluation rubric, it will be oversimplified. This happens often.)
I can just see the section of the rubric: “Highly Effective: Biometric bracelets show peak engagement for 80 percent of lesson or more. Effective: Biometric bracelets show peak engagement for 60 percent of lesson or more. Ineffective: Biometric bracelets show peak engagement for less than 60 percent of lesson.” Teachers would also receive credit (or not) for monitoring electrical levels and adjusting the lesson accordingly.
It’s possible, of course, that nothing of the sort will happen. But given that these bracelets are entering classrooms, the scenario isn’t far-fetched. Also, even if the bracelets themselves weren’t used in teacher evaluations, conclusions from the research might well be. Things that boosted the electrical levels might be regarded as good.
LikeLike
This is nuts. Most parents will object to these bracelets being placed on their kids and the children will not be thrilled with having to wear the bracelets. The kids my sabotage or vandalize the bracelets out of frustration and anger.
LikeLike
Diana S.’s “creation” of a rubric to accompany the braceletes is right on target. Best observation: “Teachers will also receive credit (or not) for monitoring electrical levels and adjusting the lesson accordingly.” Yes. This is the icing on the galvanic cake: the expectation that this kind of data could become useful and actually be applied by teachers to “improve their delivery of instruction.” Talk about data-driven.
I have fantasized about an electrical device connected to each student’s chair. When I notice that John, in the third seat of the second row, appears to have lost interest in my lesson, I could press a button that would administer a tiny jolt of electricity–shocking him back into “engagement.” I imagine that the public would find this cruel and inhumane.
I wonder if the Gates Galvano Gear would receive a more favorable reception.
LikeLike
Besides the fact that these bracelets seem something out of bad sci-fi or a nightmare coming to life- i can’t help but think about a friend of mine who when both of our sons were in first grade told me that her son’s teacher was convinced that her son was not paying attention to her and he was always getting in trouble for it. My friend was mystified because he seemed to be making good progress and he was in fact a very bright young man. So one day she just up and asked her son “are you paying attention to the teacher, because it’s disrespectful not to pay attention.” and he burst into tears and said “yes, i pay attention all the time.” so my friend went back to the teacher and said “he says he’s paying attention, he’s doing well, what is it that makes you think that he’s not paying attention? is he not getting his work done? is he sassing you? is he disturbing others? what?” and the teacher answered “no, it’s just that he won’t look at me ever.” so then my friend went back to her son and told him “your teacher says you don’t look at her when she’s talking, are you looking at her?” and he said “no, i can’t look at her” and again burst into tears. my friend asked “why not?” and he answered “because her eyes are buggy and they creep me out.” and in fact, this teacher did indeed have buggy eyes. (-: so perhaps he would have been the one kid that a galvanized bracelet would have helped so he wouldn’t have had to look at his buggy eyed teacher and she could know he was paying attention. (-:
but seriously, how creepy does the “reform” movement have to get before the public becomes enraged at all this nonsense?
LikeLike
If we have the kids wearing galvanic skin response bracelets, will we have to stop teaching the novel ‘1984’?
LikeLike
Also, I hope they are doing this study with a control, say with responses for a couple of mice in the room. 🙂
LikeLike
Unfortunately, the people in Admin will find this another great “progressive idea” to keep pace with technology. Already in my classes they have instituted “clickers” for students to use to conclude how well they are understanding a question in a lecture. This dis-engages a student from raising a and, fostering discussion and the Sophist dialogue. They can just sit back and click away like a channel remote.
The student evaluations they fill out have a great impact on my teaching evaluations- mostly to the negative. When the work is hard and demanding, they whine and I get low evals. Faculty who pander to evaluations and don;t stress hard work get better evals. What kind of a system is this?
I’m al for getting rid of bad teachers, but when you are trying to raise the bar, students get to lower it.
LikeLike
I agree with you. Student evaluations penalize teachers who have high standards and reward those who are entertaining.
LikeLike
Bill (the Eugenist) Gates sold his soul to UNESCO and is immersed in global warming ideology and seeks to control the population to combat climate change. He signed an agreement with UNESCO years ago and I truly wonder if he’s losing his mind.
LikeLike
I know that this is a somewhat old post. I’m really kicking myself in the ass for leaving the management/tech consulting field to become a teacher. I still love the kids, but I can’t believe the nightmare that we are facing as professionals. Having worked in a few different fields, there is no contest–teachers are treated worse than professionals in any other industry. It’s only going to get worse. I fear that the backlash that we are all hoping will restore sanity is not coming.
LikeLike