A reader who signs in as “Democracy” posted the following:
Part 1
As some have noted, technology is a valuable tool. The problem is that it’s too often misused, and not necessarily for the better–– think texting and selfie-taking while driving, political and corporate hacking, nanosecond stock trading.
Anyone who’s become relatively adept at using technology knows something about becoming involved in multi-tasking.
Consider the following, reported in 2008 by Christine Rosen:
“Numerous studies have shown the sometimes-fatal danger of using cell phones and other electronic devices while driving, for example, and several states have now made that particular form of multitasking illegal. In the business world, where concerns about time-management are perennial, warnings about workplace distractions spawned by a multitasking culture are on the rise. In 2005, the BBC reported on a research study, funded by Hewlett-Packard and conducted by the Institute of Psychiatry at the University of London, that found, ‘Workers distracted by e-mail and phone calls suffer a fall in IQ more than twice that found in marijuana smokers.’ The psychologist who led the study called this new ‘infomania’ a serious threat to workplace productivity.”
The threat to workplace productivity is not made lightly. Rosen added:
“One study by researchers at the University of California at Irvine monitored interruptions among office workers; they found that workers took an average of twenty-five minutes to recover from interruptions such as phone calls or answering e-mail and return to their original task. Discussing multitasking with the New York Times in 2007, Jonathan B. Spira, an analyst at the business research firm Basex, estimated that extreme multitasking—information overload—costs the U.S. economy $650 billion a year in lost productivity.”
Public schools are not exempt from this cautionary information.
In his 2003 book, The Flickering Mind, Todd Oppenheimer wrote that
technology was a “false promise.” That is, all too often technology is no
panacea to improving learning and often undermines funding that might have
gone to reducing class sizes, and improving teacher salaries and facilities.
Based on his many classroom observations, Oppenheimer said that “more often
than not” classroom use of computers encouraged “everybody in the room to go
off task.” He noted that a UCLA research team investigating results from
the Third International Math and Sciences Study (TIMSS) reviewed video from
8th grade math and science classes in seven different countries. One
difference stood out: while American teachers use overhead projectors (and
increasingly now LCDs), teachers in other countries still use blackboards,
which maintain “a complete record of the entire lesson.”
A recent Texas study found that “there was no evidence linking technology immersion with student self-directed learning or their general satisfaction with schoolwork.” And the New York Times reported recently on classroom use of technology in Arizona, where “The digital push aims to go far beyond gadgets to transform the very nature of the classroom.” As the Times reported, “schools are spending billions on technology,even as they cut budgets and lay off teachers, with little proof that this approach is improving basic learning.”
But it is quite beneficial to the companies that peddle computers, software, and technological gadgetry. And the big push now is for “technology-enhanced instruction” and “innovation” and virtual schools (on-line instruction).
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I know teachers in several school districts who are now using online textbooks. Most of their students report that they would rather do work with pen and paper than online. Students often become frustrated that the computer marks their answers incorrectly or that they are not able to understand why they got a question wrong. This is especially true of programs that allow students to write in their own answers. They also have to watch videos which explain concepts, and they don’t particularly like doing so because they can’t ask questions and they don’t feel engaged. It’s also interesting that some students complain that the teachers use the online textbook basically to teach classes. They do all their work online and sometimes tend to see the teacher as lazy or not involved. I’ve had personal experience with this and it seems as though the better students feel this way. Teachers bring much more to the content than presenting the material in a dry way. They tell stories, relate their own experience, and show enthusiasm (or not sometimes) for the material. This is what students enjoy and it’s pretty hard to get from a video. In general, I think students have just had too much of screens, videos, phones, etc. I think one part of learning that is always overlooked is the quiet and time needed to think about things and let things sink in (Look at Albert Einstein who sat around in the patent office and did “nothing” but think!). Ask any scholar. One has to have time to be quiet and gather one’s thoughts and ideas. For students today, it’s practically impossible. We’re also not doing a good job of teaching them to care for themselves. I know students who have no time during the day to eat lunch because they are overbooked. Perhaps this is how they learn to have grit but it will only lead to illness in the long run. Technology is a double edged sword and always has been. Unfortunately, we aren’t much better now than we were 50-60 years ago at looking at the problems presented by technology.
Your post makes so much sense, it’s hard to believe one needs to defend the simple concept of pausing to think about and question the curriculum. You assign a chapter to read. Maybe only half the kids read it, but their study helps pull the others along next day. Sure a screened power point of the chapter is helpful in class, but only as a review of a section, then one stops & engages in dialog to elicit engagement.
The idea that one can skip dialog/ discussion led by a teacher– to be substituted with reading text online & answering solo Q-A input before program allows you to proceed– is a very old idea, that brings us back to pioneer days where a precocious Lincoln could “read law” and rise to the presidency, while his lesser peers perhaps learned a bit of reading & writing before joining their families in farming.
Computers are useful educational tools when they supplement instruction and provide adaptive assistance to some students. However, tech companies assume computers can do it all, and there is no evidence that supports this assertion. It is also in the interest of tech companies to sell more products so they have a vested interest in making such claims.
There are several problems associated with too much computer instruction. Effectively learning is social, and the isolation of computer technology is stultifying. Computer instruction for young students is antithetical to what we know about how young children learn best. We also have no information of what the long term impact is on the eyes and brain development of students. We do know that too much screen time is often related to attentional issues in students. These concerns are real, and parents and educators should make decisions accordingly.
Computers have limited value instructing the big ideas. Big ideas in history, literature and the social sciences are better taught through discussion that promote synthesis and evaluation of ideas. Computers tend to fragment information which impedes their ability to connect ideas and thought. Perhaps this is why students do better on pencil and paper tests as opposed to computer tests. The computer format of one screen at a time may actually impede reflection which is important to learning. In my opinion we should remain skeptical to the marketing claims of tech companies and act in the best interests of students, not tech companies.
So true. It might be interesting to study any differences apparent between reading by kindle/ nook vs reading an actual book. Personally, I do a great deal of reading on iPad (news, research, & forums such as this one), but devote nearly equal time to books. There is no question that reading via online screen elicits intensity. Part of that is the physical stimulation of a lit screen, part is the knowledge that one can at any moment answer Q’s/ engage images via google or find out what others think. But book-reading engages one’s own thinking to the exclusion of others’ input, & puts one in a relaxed mode where one’s own analysis will rise to the surface as one puts the bookmarker in place for next time.
I can never donate my books to a library or bookstore because they are so full of notes, post-its, highlights, papers falling out, etc. That’s what real reading is all about. I find it funny that now we are encouraging students to use post-it notes to annotate yet they don’t have their own books or papers. How do you do this on a computer? I know there are note-taking icons, etc. but it’s just not the same. You can’t see the whole page at once and typing is totally different. I think kids need to see paper and annotate and be able to look back at the printed word. And I don’t need a research study to tell me so. I see and experience it every day.
It is dated information. Lots of things have changed since 2003 – at which time the results were outdated already.
Having said that, I agree with the general idea that the use of technology is more often a hindrance than a help. Teachers are not given the much needed pd before technology is introduced to a class room, and no pd is provided during the time technology is used.
So we have an average of 5000$ in each class room (as a conservative estimate!) and no effective use.
It’s easy to blame industry. But from up close and personal experience, that is an oversimplification
There are teachers who swear up and down that they cannot teach unless they have x or y in the room. Not necessarily because they actually know how to use the product, but teacher Jones has that, so I have to have it too!
SOME teachers are able to deliver amazing content to kids in the class room – but at an investment of personal time to develop that content.
But the majority of teachers do not have the desire to invest that much personal time in something that may be totally different a year from now.
As I have stated before, the industry has finally recognized that no, a new gadget is not THE cure to get better achievement. It does get better engagement, but which kid doesn’t like gadgets?
We are in an age now where parents need to closely watch and call for answers about what their school districts are buying. Parents should specifically ask why the district believes learning will improve. And improving test scores shouldn’t be enough of a reason, especially if say, the product causes students to lose interest in learning, become bored or frustrated, etc.
Also, parents need to push districts to closely examine whether the product’s claims are accurate and impressive. For example, i-Ready diagnostic testing is an extremely popular adaptive test (read “computerized”); its website claims that this 45-minute mulitiple choice test “pinpoints students’ needs down to the sub-skill level” — really? The site further touts that the test is 88% accurate in predicting whether a child will score as “proficient” on state tests. My response: so what? Most teachers can predict proficiency as well, and will probably be accurate. Worse, the i-Ready site admits that its predictability drops to an unimpressive 68% when predicting whether a child will score a 1,2,3, or 4 (NY’s state test scale). So why bother with extra testing, extra anxiety, loss of learning days, and expense? (http://www.casamples.com/downloads/i-Ready-Diagnostic-New-York-State-Validity-Study.pdf , pp.12-13, p.23)
In sum, parents, please monitor and speak out about new technology purchases and initiatives. (And btw, I’m not opposed to all technology; for example 3D printers are exciting and offer opportunities for student creativity.)
Personally, I would prefer to see a tech-free [i.e., free of computers/ iPads/ calculators operated by students] classroom in primary [K-5]. I don’t care whether teachers use smartboards or other tech to display curriculum on a screen. Screen display of information = text display in books. Animation/ movies are a heightened version of information input.
But, when it comes to processing information, you need to build student understanding of how tech came to be– how it is based on pencil-&-paper writing and calculations. Without this grounding, students are less likely to grasp that answers produced magically online are simply amalgams of human understanding at this moment in time– that they, too, can question and contribute their unique slant on reality to that amalgam.
I remember in the late 70s-early 80s when schools were beginning to require calculators for math class. My father went in to the teacher and said he would NOT buy me a calculator until I learned to do simple math on paper and in my head.
bethree5, I agree on your tech-free classroom from K-5, and I am far from a Luddite.
Technology, like anything else, has its time and place.
The tech super-fad in schools is, like so many other things, a result of “market sense” rather than common sense, science, or what the teachers really wanted.
Behind fads like this, you will find private companies marketing their new products, and ultimately just trying to make money. Zuckerberg and Gates will have our schools flooded with technology if it were up to them, regardless of whether it’s in the students’ best interest. They will hardly even ask the question before proceeding.
The question with the tech super-fad was never about “what’s best for kids.” If it were, we would have a more balanced used of technology in schools and elsewhere.
Nope, thank the “free market.” It will take twenty years until everyone realizes the scam. But, a few people will have made a lot of money by then. And they will continue to try and justify their “freedom” to disrupt ours.