Joho the Blog » [2b2k] Is the Net shortcutting our kids out of learning?

[2b2k] Is the Net shortcutting our kids out of learning?

I was invited to give a talk yesterday afternoon to the faculty at Brookline High School where all three of our children were educated, and that graduated my wife and both of her parents. Furthermore, the event was held in the Black Box, a performance space I watched our youngest child perform in many times. (Go T-Tones!) So, it was thrilling and quite intimidating, even though the new headmaster, Deb Holman [twitter: bhsheadmaster] could not be more welcoming and open.

There were some great (= hard) questions, and a lot of skepticism about my comments, but not all that much time to carry on a conversation. After most people left, a couple of teachers stayed to talk.

One said that she thoroughly disagrees with my generally positive characterization of the Internet. In her experience, it is where children go to get quick answers. Rather than provoking them and challenging them, the Net lets them get instant gratification, and shuts down their curiosity.

We talked for a while. Her experience certainly rings true. After all, I go to the Net for quick answers also, and if I had to write an assignment on, say, The Great Gatsby, and I wanted to finish it before The Walking Dead comes on, I’d be out on the Net. And I’d get it done much faster than in the old days when I’d have to go to the library.

I’m still not sure what to make of this phenomenon. Did the old library experience of looking things up in the card catalog or in the Periodical Index made me any more thoughtful than googling does now? In fact, I’m more likely to see more ideas and opinions on the Net than in a trip to the library. On the other hand, the convenience of the Net means that I can just look up some ideas rather than having to work through them myself; the Net is letting student short-circuit the process of forming ideas. Perhaps the old difficulty of accessing materials added friction that usefully slowed down thought. I don’t know. I don’t feel that way about my own experience, but I am not a high school student, and I’m pretty self-deluding to begin with.

Anyway, that’s pretty much the issue the second teacher brought up after the talk. Keep in mind that BHS has an extraordinary set of teachers, always caring and frequently quite inspiring. She is in the School Within a School, which is more loosely structured than the rest of BHS. When she gives writing assignments, she tells her students to come up with an idea that will surprise her, and to express it in their own voice. Very cool.

Her concern is that jangle of the Net keeps students from mulling over ideas. Thought comes from a private and individual place, she believes, and students need that stillness and aloneness.

I can’t disagree with her. I want students to understand — to experience — the value of solitude and quiet, and to have internalized enough information that they can have it at hand to play with and synthesize. And yet…

..I’m not convinced that private thought is realest thought. I know that who I am when I’m alone doesn’t feel more real than when I am with others, and in many ways feels less authentic; I’ve written before about the inner narrator who accompanies me when I visit someplace new alone, making me feel more crazy than authentic. In a similar way, I’m not ready to accept that private thinking is the best thinking or the most authentic thinking. It has its place, of course, but personally (data point of one!) I think best when engaged with others, or when I’m writing while imagining my words engaging with others.

We have, it seems to me, overvalued private thinking, which is certainly not to say that it has no value. We have likewise undervalued social thinking. But now We think in public, out loud, with others. Most of our public engagements of course are not particularly deep or thoughtful in any normal use of the term. That’s why we need to be educating our children to appreciate thinking out loud with others, and teaching them how to do it. It’s in these public multi-way discussions that ideas and knowledge develop.

While there are many ways in which public thinking can go wrong, it has the advantage of revealing the mechanisms of knowledge in all their fallibility. We are still carrying over the cultural wish for black box authorities whom we can trust simply because they were the ones who said it. We need to steer our children away from that wish for inhuman knowledge, and thus toward recognizing how ideas and knowledge actually develop. Public thinking does that. At least it should. And it will do it more if our children learn to always wonder how knowledge has been brought forward. Especially when the ideas seem so obvious.

This is one reason I find the “flipped classroom” idea so interesting. (Good discussion of this yesterday on On Point.) I was asked yesterday what I’d like BHS to do if I could have it do anything. I answered rather badly, but part of it would have to be that students learn how to engage with one another socially so that they build knowledge together, and this knowledge tolerates disagreement, is assumed to be public, and is aware of itself as a product of social engagement. Of course that happens already in classrooms — and more so (presumably) in flipped classrooms — but we should be preparing our students for doing this virtually as well as in real space because the “real” discussions will increasingly be online where there is a wealth of sources to draw upon and to argue about.

But it’s hard to see how we get there so long as we continue to assign papers and reports as the primary type of knowledge artifact, isn’t it? (I’m not even going to mention standardized testing.) Doing so implicitly tells students that knowing is what you do alone: foraging sources, coming back with useful bits, and then engaging in an internal thought process that renders them into one of the conventional written forms. In that frame, the Net looks like an uncurated library, overflowing with lies, studded with occasional truths.

Instead, students could be required to explore a topic together, in public (or at least in the protected public of their class), discussing, arguing, joking, and evaluating one another’s sources. In that frame, the Net looks like a set of discussions, not an information resource at the end of the Information Highway. After all, kids don’t come into a class interested in The Great Gatsby. The teacher will help them to see what’s interesting about the novel, which is crucial and not easy to do. But primarily we get interested in things through one another. My interest steers yours, and yours amplifies mine. Our interest in The Great Gatsby is mediated and amplified by our interest in one another. We make the world interesting together. The Net does this all the time. Papers and reports rarely do.In their pursuit of demonstrating mastery, they too often drive the interest right out of the topic — less so at a wonderful school like BHS where teachers ask students to write in their own voice and come up with ideas that surprise them both.

Anyway, I came out of the session very stimulated, very thankful that so many of my relatives had the great good luck to attend that institution, and ever thankful to our teachers.

4 Responses to “[2b2k] Is the Net shortcutting our kids out of learning?”

  1. As a math teacher I always tell my students to show their work. One reason is clearly so that can see their thinking and I’m often more interested in their thought process than on their final answer. However, another reason that I explain to my students is that in writing things down: ideas, graphs, tables, etc. it gives time for students to “get into” the problem. That is, while they are writing down stuff that they know their brain is subconciously mulling over the problem and, in so doing, sifting through the information to get to its central core.

    Not completely sure how this idea relates to the them of the blog here. But, I think there is something about slowing down the thought process that is necessary to solve problems and perhaps not supported by the world in which we live where we want instantaneous answers to everything.

  2. Nicely said in a truly Heideggerian manner.

  3. As a trustee at Colorado Academy in the late 1980′s, when I was leading the Dynamac experiment, I connected with Apple Fellow Alan Kay who visited the school and joined several other conversations as we imagined how computers could be actually useful to education. Most on this site know that Kay was the Chief Scientist at Xerox’ Palo Alto Research Center when he originated the Graphic User Interface and the desktop metaphor, which he later came to regret. He also conceived the tablet-like Dynabook, which helped us over-hype our Dynamac.

    Kay and our Headmaster, Frank Wallace, were equally cautious. At first hearing Kay’s talk on computers and education, Frank’s incredulity was that he had expected to hear a geek speaking out of his competency, but concluded that Kay was one of the finest educators he’d ever met. This was before the public Internet, so the conversation was about computers only.

    Kay was intrigued by Jean Piaget’s work on stages of childhood cognitive development, particularly the transition from the “preoperation stage,” when children aged 3–7 develop intelligence by using their natural intuition, to the “concrete operational stage,” 8–11, when they develop cognitively through the use of logic that is based on concrete evidence. Showing a video of a 4-year-old playing with MacPaint, the audience seemed unsurprised as the child selected a tool to draw an oval, then filled it with a brick pattern and then erased it. Kay pointed out that drawing the oval was expected of a child below 8, but that modifying it was an expression of the concrete operational stage; that her cognitive capabilities were modified by the character of the tool. He also pointed out that, in her hand, the mouse was as unwieldy as a brick to an adult.

  4. […] Is the Net shortcutting our kids out of learning? […]

Leave a Reply


Web Joho only

Comments (RSS).  RSS icon