Getting Technology Out of the Classroom?
Peter Lawler is Dana Professor of Government and former chair of the department of Government and International Studies at Berry College. He serves as executive editor of the journal Perspectives on Political Science, and has been chair of the politics and literature section of the American Political Science Association. He also served on the editorial board of the new bilingual critical edition of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, and serves on the editorial boards of several journals. He has written or edited fifteen books and over 200 articles and chapters in a wide variety of venues. He was the 2007 winner of the Weaver Prize in Scholarly Letters.\r\n\r\nLawler served on President Bush's Council on Bioethics from 2004 – 09. His most recent book, Modern and American Dignity, is available from ISI Books.\r\n\r\nFollow him on Twitter @peteralawler.
The high-tech parents from Silicon Valley are now sending their kids to a school—the Waldorf School of the Peninsula—that sells itself as computer-free. Why? Such technology is a distraction, turning attention away from reading, writing, numbers, talking, and thinking. It’s certainly difficult to deny that computers inhibit "human interaction and attention spans." So more useful by far than iPads and Google are chalk boards, blackboards, bookshelves, No. 2 pencils, workbooks, and wooden desks.
Students, of course, really need to find better purposes for their hands than pounding on keyboards and clicking on various websites. So they should spend time honing their knitting skills, with the simple but most useful goal of making socks. To synchronize body and brain, nothing’s better than reciting verse while playing catch with beanbags.
The argument against this low-tech approach, of course, is that students have been brought up with computers, and they find them riveting. So there’s no way to hold their attention these days without them. Students lack the virtue or habituation to be approached "really" or personally—as opposed to indirectly or virtually.
But shouldn’t school be about facilitating education by fighting against the indulgent excesses of any particular time and place? It’s just not true that little kids or even college kids are so corrupted that they can’t be approached anywhere but online. It’s even true that they know they’ve been deprived of a lot in a society where everyone spends too much time in front of a screen. They long for better habits than our high-tech world automatically gives them; they long for the discipline that allows them really to learn for themselves with others.
Most students, of course, get computer literate at home. And everyone knows these days that being always online and compulsively Facebooking messes with your brain and makes you a less fit friend for real people. It’s great to be attuned to popular culture in all its forms, but those who really understand it—and put it in its proper, ironic perspective—have read lots of real books with the care they deserve. Maybe it’s true that much of what we really need to know can be found on Google, but Googling really doesn’t let us in on who we are and what we’re supposed to do with what we know.
UPDATE: When I wrote this, all I was going on was the NYT article. It's since come to my attention that Waldorf Schools are infected by the pseudo-philosophical and sometimes nutty ideas of their founder. I have no idea how infected the Peninsula school is. If you go to the comment thread to the article, you can see the controversy, and you can see more by looking to the article linked in the first comment in the thread below.
I actually don't think anything described in the article on which this post is based is nutty. Much of what I'm saying is summed up by an eloquent comment in the NYT thread:
We should not be so quick to flood grade school education with new technologies, simply because it's available or because we think it could give us an edge in global economic competition. Computers today are easy to learn to use at any age, quickly and effectively. But there are only a few short, critical years of early development in which to teach a child the basics of being human, how to love learning, and the best ways of working with others. There is no app for that, and there never will be.
A guide to making difficult conversations possible—and peaceful—in an increasingly polarized nation.
- How can we reach out to people on the other side of the divide? Get to know the other person as a human being before you get to know them as a set of tribal political beliefs, says Sarah Ruger. Don't launch straight into the difficult topics—connect on a more basic level first.
- To bond, use icebreakers backed by neuroscience and psychology: Share a meal, watch some comedy, see awe-inspiring art, go on a tough hike together—sharing tribulation helps break down some of the mental barriers we have between us. Then, get down to talking, putting your humanity before your ideology.
- The Charles Koch Foundation is committed to understanding what drives intolerance and the best ways to cure it. The foundation supports interdisciplinary research to overcome intolerance, new models for peaceful interactions, and experiments that can heal fractured communities. For more information, visit charleskochfoundation.org/courageous-collaborations.
Progressive America would be half as big, but twice as populated as its conservative twin.
- America's two political tribes have consolidated into 'red' and 'blue' nations, with seemingly irreconcilable differences.
- Perhaps the best way to stop the infighting is to go for a divorce and give the two nations a country each
- Based on the UN's partition plan for Israel/Palestine, this proposal provides territorial contiguity and sea access to both 'red' and 'blue' America
A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration likely violated the reporter's Fifth Amendment rights when it stripped his press credentials earlier this month.
- Acosta will be allowed to return to the White House on Friday.
- The judge described the ruling as narrow, and didn't rule one way or the other on violations of the First Amendment.
- The case is still open, and the administration may choose to appeal the ruling.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.