As someone who is passionately committed to bringing technologies into classrooms, I have a hard time understanding resistance on the part of my CTs or peers. Recently, a classmate posted this on his blog, regarding the pervasiveness of technology in contemporary culture and its (in his view) negative effects. I would like to answer his concerns, not in a walk-off/dance-off/ you-totally-got-served-kind-of-way, but rather as a thoughtful and respectful rebuttal. Let me repeat: I’m not trying to call anyone out. However, I think that many teachers share these views and this fear is holding them back from using technology to their benefit.

Since Prensky’s writings, over-stimulation in society continues to grow exponentially, leaving me in a world where I can not do homework without also listening to my MP3 player, watching TV, and playing Freecell.

This refers to parallel processing and random access thinking. These hyperlinks are a prime example of this type of thinking and its inherent advantages. A new piece of information–in this case, a vocabulary word–is encountered in an authentic situation. While I still explain the vocabulary term in the following text, the hyperlink instantly takes my reader to additional information. The new vocabulary is placed into context with numerous pathways facilitating retrieval. In other words, the chances that my reader will remember this word in the future are greatly augmented.

Expanding technologies have changed the way we think so that this ability to process random and parallel information (rather than linear) is stronger than previously imagined. This means that not only will my reader have an easier time remembering the vocabulary word, they will easily pick right back up from where they left off in reading this blog post, making their learning not only richer, but more efficient as well.

I would like to point out a quote in the Wikipedia page regarding parallel processing, “You can buy a chess machine that beats a master but can’t yet buy a vision machine that beats a toddler’s vision.” While computers can now be made with multiple processors, there will never be as many as we have in the human brain. Furthermore, each time we process new information or create a new link between two prior pieces of knowledge, we are adding one more “processor” in our brains. This is why the humans always come out on top in dystopian fiction such as the Matrix where men battle humanoid machines. Our ingenuity is the result of a limitless number of neural “processors.” In essence, it is this ability to process parallelly that defines our humanity.

(BTW: I agree that Freecell is most definitely NOT fun.)

Kids in my classroom and work are “twitching” all over the place and can never sit in their seat, it is very hard for them to slow their pace and actually think through work rather then feeling the instant gratification or clicking a button or playing a game.

Perhaps it is because it is so completely entertaining to imagine the children in your classroom twitching throughout their day, but I’m at a loss here. I can’t think of a rebuttal, but then, I can’t identify the problem either. The younger generation is speeding up. They will have capabilities that we could not imagine as a result of this. Imagine what quick response time and immediate cognitive reflexes can do for job sectors such as aerodynamics, law enforcement, medicine, education…the truth is that I can’t think of one profession that would not be bettered by a quick response time. (Maybe massage therapy….)

To me, the problem lies not in my students, but rather in the pedagogical choices that aren’t meeting their needs. A short tangent to make my point: 100 years ago, it was scandalous and shocking for a woman to show her ankles. Today, I’m worried that todays headband might be tomorrow’s micro-miniskirt. The point is that social norms and values are in a constant state of fluctuation. The idea that these “overstimulated” children will grow up to run the world like our parents did is silly. My own place of employment is proof of this. We have toys hanging from the ceiling, yoga balls rolling around the office, and projectile nerf missles constantly threatening to knock my latte over onto my desk. Mind, this is the development team of a publicly-traded, nationwide, award-winning software company. My boss is young, the employees are young, and the workplace is young. We don’t do business like my father does. But the important thing to note is that we are successful and productive regardless.

I suppose my main point is that like differentiation, it is not the student’s job to adapt to OUR teaching philosophy, but rather it is our job to adapt our teaching philosophies to our students. Because the truth is that we are not preparing them for our world, we are preparing them for theirs.

The line between fantasy and reality for children has always been blurred but society is at a point where children are having a very hard time overcoming their “childhood imagination” and growing out of fantasy.

First of all, I would argue that it is our “childhood imagination” that has made all technological advances, from the wheel to space travel, possible. A strongly developed imagination, the ability to think outside the box, is what we all strive for, and not just recently. Adaptation and creative thinking are key for any species’ survival. The ability to imagine that a stick could be used to “fish” termites out of their mounds demonstrate that technology isn’t about the “thing” itself, but rather the way of holding it, of using it, that defines it as a technology. Without our imaginations, the scientific method could not exist, as there would be no means of devising hypotheses. Taking this further, no higher-level thinking would be possible without imagination, as it allows us to deconstruct a problem into manageable parts. These parts can be run through a series of tests in our simulation lab (imagination) to quickly and efficiently determine the best course of action to accomplish a specific outcome. Imagination is key to human survival, and we should nourish it rather than stifle it.

This brings us to fantasy, fairy tales, science fiction, religion, and mythology. All of these are facets of the same idealogical base. Joseph Campbell, a leading scholar in the field (and definitely worth reading–the man was a genius), once said, “Myths are public dreams, dreams are private myths.” Essentially, he is making the connection from imagination to the fantasy genre. Fantasy, therefore, is the collective imaginings that we share as a society. It is the place where actions are tested and evaluated. It teaches us the morals of a society, and exposes its injustices, more so than any documentary ever could.

There is a fable, a childhood story, an imaginary fantasy that teaches us about technology. It is by Aesop, and goes as follows:

A Crow, half-dead with thirst, came upon a Pitcher which had once been full of water; but when the Crow put its beak into the mouth of the Pitcher he found that only very little water was left in it, and that he could not reach far enough down to get at it. He tried, and he tried, but at last had to give up in despair. Then a thought came to him, and he took a pebble and dropped it into the Pitcher. Then he took another pebble and dropped it into the Pitcher. Then he took another pebble and dropped that into the Pitcher. Then he took another pebble and dropped that into the Pitcher. Then he took another pebble and dropped that into the Pitcher. Then he took another pebble and dropped that into the Pitcher. At last, at last, he saw the water mount up near him, and after casting in a few more pebbles he was able to quench his thirst and save his life.

(Story acquired here.)

Although I have been familiar with this story my entire life, I first thought about the relationship between this story and technology after reading an article by Yong Zhao, who put it into its proper context. Four things happen here:

1. The main character identifies a problem.
2. The main character develops a goal to solve the problem.
3. The main character is prevented from attaining this goal due to external events.
4. The main character uses a technology (a tool) to attain the goal and solve the problem.

There is a lot going on here! Within the story, the crow identifies a problem, brainstorm, uses its imagination to visualize a solution, and creates a technology to reach this solution. Imagination, technology, and higher-level thinking are inextricably linked. But step back even further, get a little pomo, and we see that the use of the story as a means of metaphoric or allegoric communication engages the reader in an imaginative, higher-level thinking activity. The reader takes an imagined, fantastical situation and applies it to a concrete and immediate problem: the issue of imagination and technological innovation. Thus, both the content and the context of the story are of the utmost importance.

With the rise of obesity, adult-onset diabetes, and heart problems in America, the replacement of physical activity with digital is certainly a concern.

I don’t think that anyone is advocating the removal of physical education, recess, or health from the educational system. What we are trying to do is teach children how to make the best use of the tools that are available to them, while making the best use of the tools that are available to us. Technology provides new and exciting ways for children to interact with materials, and facilitates differentiation. Putting pictures in books doesn’t mean that children are less likely to read; it allows children to interact with the material in a visual manner, which enhances their understanding of the text. With technology, we can differentiate in a similar, yet infinitely greater, fashion.

Adult-onset diabetes, heart problems, and obesity have more to do with processed foods and a carnivorous, consumerist culture than with educational technology.

Children who lack the exposure, access, and cultural capital to certain technologies will be at a huge disadvantage, not only in their learning but also in the skills needed to enter a workplace that is becoming more digitalized.

This is my biggest point of contention. I believe wholeheartedly that technology is a key component of achieving social change. With technology, children are given the means with which to engage in authentic and meaningful activities. I believe that the new frontier of critical pedagogy rests in the technological revolution. The internet, with its proliferation of “free knowledge” and open-source code perfectly embraces the goals of critical pedagogy. Prestige is unnecessary when building a website, starting a blog, loading pictures, or investigating a topic. All children are given the means to access a wealth of free, immediate information, and to become a part of a community of learners.

Furthermore, in regards to issues of social and cultural capital, technology allows children to have experiences that would otherwise be denied to them. For example, the eighth-grade class of my middle school went on a field trip to Washington, D.C. The experience was a rich, rewarding, and provided great deal of cultural capital. To many middle schools around the nation, this type of excursion would be a dream come true. In the face of budget cuts and standardized assessments, there is neither the time nor money for arts and culture. However, technology can provide these students with access that they might not have had otherwise. They can take a “virtual field trip” using a map-mashup. GoogleEarth, government websites, online galleries, and audio recordings can allow children to navigate the streets of D.C., see where the white house is in relation to the Capitol, the Pentagon, or the Smithsonian. They can do math exercises where they chart distances and plan routes between locations. They can investigate the insides of government buildings, explore the exhibits and galleries of the museums, and listen to a famous speech while taking a 360-degree tour of the location where it was delivered. Students can write and publish a travel-guide, researching the area, writing about the sights, creating their own online-tour, etc.

All of this can be done using nothing more than an internet connection, a reasonably-working computer, and countless free web 2.0 applications. No fancy programs, no expensive software. It doesn’t get more proletariat than that. Technology can and should be used to bring knowledge to the people. It is our job to figure out how to make that happen.