Cathy Davidson has a new book in which she proposes “how to revolutionize the university to prepare students for a world in flux”. Nothing like setting high goals for yourself, is there?
In an excerpt from that book, she tackles the slightly less daunting issue of whether technology in the classroom benefits or hurts students.
She makes many great points in a very short space, but anyone who makes decisions about using technology in a K12 classroom should be required to demonstrate an understanding of this paragraph.
Here’s the connection between educational technophobia or technophilia: Both presume that technology in and of itself has superpowers that can either tank or replace human learning. Technology can automate many things. What it cannot automate is how humans learn something new and challenging. Neither can it, in its own right, rob us of our ability to learn when we want and need to learn. It can distract us, entice us away from the business of learning–but so can just about anything else when we’re bored.
Exactly. Technology is not a superhero. Or a super-villain. Good outcomes or bad (or something in-between) depends on how you use it.
Instead of either banning devices or automating information retrieval–whether from a screen or a lecturer droning on from the podium–the best pedagogical research we have reinforces the idea that learning in the classroom is most effective when it proceeds pretty much the way it does when we try to master something new outside of school: learning incrementally, being challenged, trying again. I even studied for my driver’s test that way–and certainly that’s what I do if I’m aspiring to something really difficult.
Incremental and challenging certainly doesn’t describe the test-driven process that “learning” in most American schools. With or without technology.