The great techno-push in our schools is killing people skills

photo by Drew Herron


Instead of improving teaching and learning, greater emphasis on computer technology and Internet use often has the result of weakening students’ social skills and eroding opportunities for the elements of learning some have called the “hidden curriculum”. Yes, it’s true – kids will spend hours upon hours sitting in front of computers without any expressed desire to hear a human voice or have any physical contact. And of course, young people have been spending hours watching television or playing videogames as well, but at least they may be doing so with other people. Computers have the potential to become the most isolating, harmfully addictive devices ever unleashed upon an unsuspecting public.

Bernie Froese-Germain (2001) has related some worrying facts about computer-users’ well-being:

“A recent study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University found that ‘greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in participants’ communication with family members in the household, declines in the size of their social circle, and increases in their depression and loneliness” (p.4) Froese-Germain has also noted that Ursula Franklin has recognized “the potential for computers to isolate students and to make learning more individualistic implies that ‘these implicit learning opportunities can no longer be taken for granted.” (p. 4).

A great deal has been written and said about integrated technology’s ability to help students become more independent learners. But it may be that we are forgetting how increasing technology use alters the classroom in more ways than one, as Heather-jane Robertson (2001) relates:

“Stanford educator Larry Cuban emphasizes what every teacher knows: classrooms are built around relationships, and they aren’t important only to students. ‘The touches, smiles, warmth, and even the frowns, annoyance and anger that pass between teacher and student cement ties that deepen learning and give gratification to teachers.’ Cuban warns that the computer-dominated classrooms dry up this emotional life by unraveling the bonds between teachers and students, and creating false liaisons between students and machine” (p. 35).

As an educator, I feel I must acknowledge that relationships are what students take away from school as much as curricular outcomes. How is integration of technology improving human contact? Why would a student feel that communicating with a person in front of them is important if they can chat online and never have to bother with full sentences, the subtleties of body language, or face-to-face disagreements?

Kevin Whitmore is one educator who has noted that children’s social development had led to the formation of organizations like the Alliance for Childhood, which contends that:

“Those who place their faith in technology to solve the problems of education should look more deeply into the needs of children. The renewal of education requires personal attention to students from good teachers and active p a rents, strongly supported by their communities. It requires commitment to developmentally appropriate education and attention to the full range of children’s real low-tech needs—physical, emotional, and social, as well as cognitive.”

Whitmore goes on to inform that former Education professor Chet Bowers has argued that greater use of computers is leading to “the decline of valuable face-to-face interaction; especially mentoring relationships”.

The central question here is, if students are learning more about computers and computer skills, are they learning less about people and social skills? You may choose to believe that students’ social learning is on the right track today. Some organizations, of course, are working towards more technology skills, without necesarily directly addressing the social needs of learners. One of those groups, 21st Century Skills, or P21, is pushing for more technological know-how, as well as promoting the idea that students can at the same time learn to critically and creatively and work well with others. Sounds good, doesn't it? But a non-profit group of educators has started a group called Common Core that disagrees with the rush for 21st Century Skills, asserting that the direction taken by groups like P21 is squeezing out crucial content, never mind the implicit social learning discussed earlier. It's possible that the great techno-push may have a shoving match on its hands. However, the board of directors for P21 includes members from Intel, Apple, Dell, Adobe, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and Cisco Systems. Is this where we should be getting our direction for education? Is it any wonder that people skills are falling by the wayside in our computer-dominated, corporation-backed educational lobbying system?

Works Cited

Froese-Germain, B. (2001). A critical approach to technology - an anti-technology approach: putting education & technology in context. In But it’s only a tool! The politics of technology and education reform (pp.1-11). Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Robertson, H.-J.. (2001). But it’s only a tool! Deconstructing the defense. In But it’s only a tool! The politics of technology and education reform (pp.13-42). Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

Educational technology has not had a major impact on teaching and learning

• 
  Photo by Sarah G
  
  Educational technology should have had a major impact on teaching and learning by now – it has not.
  
  Many educational technology factions have been predicting that computers would transform and revitalize a staid and sedentary form of learning, but unfortunately the great wave of forward movement hasn’t materialized. Sure, kids have learned how to use Google, Wikipedia, and PowerPoint, and they’ve learned what games and instant messaging applications are accessible in their school. But in general, students and teachers still operate in the same manner, and the integration of educational technology has not advanced education to a substantial degree.
  
  Stanford Professor of Education Larry Cuban (2001) studied how schools used technology and reported in Oversold and Underused that:
  
  · “In the schools we studied, we found no clear and substantial evidence of students increasing their academic achievement as a result of using information technologies (p. 133).
  
  · “…the overwhelming majority of teachers employed the technology to sustain existing patterns of teaching, rather than to innovate…Only a tiny percentage of high school and university teachers used the new technologies to accelerate student-centered and project-based teaching practices.” (p. 134).
  
  · “If anything, what we observed and were told by students suggested strongly that occasional to serious use of computers in their classes had marginal or no impact on routine teaching” (p. 97).
  
  · “…teachers lecture, and students listen, read textbooks and complete individual exercises presented in workbooks or photocopies” (p. 96).
  
  Oppenheimer (2003) has argued that when Cuban “studied how schools have been using technology since the 1980’s, that there was no great accompanying improvement in teaching practices” (p. 313). Since computers have been widely introduced in the 1980s and educational technology has steadily increased, we should expect to see an increase in pedagogical advances as well as an increase in student achievement, but these developments are not readily apparent.
  
  What if researchers observed a number of schools and their computer usage in the classroom for a couple of years, gave teachers every available support and supplied lots of training? Well, that was done at least once with the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow project, but evidence of improvement was still lacking, according to Heather-jane Robertson (2001):
  
  “After two years of total and unlimited access to technology by carefully selected students, whose parents had chosen the program and whose teachers had unlimited amounts of technical and instructional support, the best that Apple could say about the achievement of ACOT students was that they hadn’t declined”(p. 133).
  
  Baker has also echoed Robertson’s assertion, saying that “data collected provide no clear idea of ACOT success or failure, although data on achievement, writing, and attitude suggest that ACOT participation is not depriving students in any way.”
  
  Therefore, according to data from a highly subsidized pilot on educational technology, no great gains were quantified, although students learning was not lessened. However, other studies have shown us a different picture. According to Kevin Whitmore, a study by Thomas Fuchs & Ludger Woessmann entitled “Computers and Student Learning: Bivariate and Multivariate Evidence on the Availability and Use of Computers at Home and at School” tells us:
  
  “For schools and parents who have together invested billions of dollars to give children a learning edge through the latest computer technology, this study brought some sobering news: Too much exposure to computers might spell trouble for the developing mind.
  From a sample of 175,000 15-year-old students in 31 countries, the researchers at the University of Munich announced that performance in maths and reading had suffered significantly among students who have more than one computer at home. And while students seemed to benefit from limited use of computers at school, those who used them several times per week at school saw their academic performance decline significantly as well.”
  
  Uh oh. Perhaps our push for greater use of educational technology has not improved learning after all.
  
  Works Cited:
  Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold & underused: computers in the classroom. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
  
  Oppenheimer, T. (2003). The flickering mind: the false promise of technology in the classroom and how learning can be saved. New York: Random House.
  
  Robertson, H.-J.. (2001). But it’s only a tool! Deconstructing the defense. In But it’s only a tool! The politics of technology and education reform (pp.13-42). Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives