Microprocessor or Chalkboard?
Ξ July 15th, 2008 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Op-Ed, Philanthropy, Psychology |
Born in 1983, I fall somewhere between “digital immigrant” and “digital native”. These are the monikers aptly used to describe the two kinds of humans who went through their important developmental years either before or after that point on the digital timeline when the internet became a ubiquitous part of our daily lives. Digital immigrants have to adapt to technology, whereas anyone who’s seen a teenager these days can see that the digital natives have to do very little adapting to the machines they grew up believing had always existed. I grew up with Nintendo, didn’t have a cell phone until late high school and didn’t use the internet on a daily basis until college, so in some sense I grew up alongside these disruptive technologies and not before or after. I like to think this gives me a unique perspective on how these modern conveniences affect the way we think and how we look at the world. Although I’m more in tune with computers than most people at my parents age ever will be, I still find myself shocked whenever I see ten year olds with cell phones or hear about elementary school students doing anything on the internet besides playing Oregon Trail.
So the world is changing and it seems our childrens’ brains are changing as well just to keep up. Ages ago, humans evolved to use tools to adapt to the natural world, but now we find ourselves forced to adapt to our own tools. How did we end up on the wrong side of the stick? It seems like we’ve created a feedback loop of biology and technology, but sometimes I’m not entirely sure that our biological adaptations serve us as much as they serve to facilitate the runaway growth in complexity of technology. In some sense, I think we’re so enamored by our digital creations that we assume whatever progress we make is inevitably good progress and therefore the onus is upon the human brain to keep up. We’ve prostrated ourselves before the altar of the microchip.
The reason I mention all this is because I recently learned of Nicholas Negroponte’s One Laptop Per Child program. I was totally blown away by the scope and vision of the program - to provide the world’s poorest children with “a rugged, low-cost, low-power, connected laptop with content and software designed for collaborative, joyful, self-empowered learning.” The mind reels considering what sort of possibilities this can open up for these children and for the entire world. Like my last Op-Ed piece pointed out, who knows how many Einsteins and Edisons are waiting for an education in the developing world? For the purpose of giving these kids connection to the outside world, freedom to pursue their own intellectual passions and the resources to become autodidacts, I wholeheartedly applaud Mr. Negroponte. This program has the potential to transform the world in countless ways and I can’t wait to see the effects.
What gives me pause, however, is the concern that we will stop at the laptop. I’m concerned that sending laptops to Kenya will become the educational equivalent of dropping sacks of rice from the sky - well intentioned, but ineffective in creating long term change without some further human interaction. Even in the richest nation in the world, we’ve begun to find that computers in the classroom do not show any correlation to improved test scores. It’s completely commonplace today for American middle and high school students to have their own computers and yet I’d feel quite confident wagering that far less than half of their time on it is spent for educational purposes. Some circles of education are finding that computers in the classroom are actually having negative effects on the progress of students.
One factor in education, however, has proven to be extremely beneficial and most of the world’s best scientists, artists, politicians and engineers have cited it as having a highly critical impact on their own success. That factor is having a good teacher. Connection to the internet is extremely powerful and so is educational software, but absolutely nothing can replace the sort of passionate curiosity that can only be instilled by parents, teachers and mentors. In a recent New Yorker conference, the erudite Malcolm Gladwell proclaimed, “There’s nothing you can do to improve school more than by improving the teachers [sic].” More than class size, computers or any other resource, good teachers equate to good education. But, he went on to note that being a “good teacher” actually boils down to something quite ineffable, citing a recent study which showed that the best educated, most prepared educational experts performed on par with a random sample of ordinary people. I can’t say this for sure, but I feel very confident that this ineffable quality probably boils down to two things - passion and the ability to connect. I say this because I know that the teachers I learned the most from were always the ones who inspired and motivated me with their passion or through their connection to me on a human level.
So, let’s send laptops to Uganda and Cambodia. But let’s not forget that the people that built those laptops probably had a whole cadre of teachers and parents pushing them forward. If we really want to teach these children we also have to instill in them a passionate curiosity. Otherwise, we’re just giving them a window into another world.
