[YL] Re: [Random] digital literacy

[Michael Thompson]

Hi Darrell,

Sorry I didn't respond to your earlier email.  I have several specific 
problems
with the article but they can be generalized as 1) problem with the thesis 2)
problem with the evidence.  I'll elaborate a bit below, but that thing is so
amazingly agenda-driven and irrational that I was initially a bit 
stunned.  The
writer is clearly talented and uses clever anecdotes and associations 
to create
a form of propaganda for  some strange hybrid of anti-rationalism and
naturalism.  If you have time, re-read the article with particular 
attention to
the descriptive terminology the author uses when referencing such things as
programming, computer use (in general), etc. Also, notice how he shifts the
original thesis (outlined below) towards the article's end and somehow relates
classroom computer learning to "...[reinforcing] the kind of faulty thinking
that is destroying the planet...abstraction, manipulation, control, and
power..."

I have some more thoughts below and I cc'd some other people who asked me to
clarify.  Matt and Monica, I can talk about this more in person if you are
interested.  I believe you each work in computer learning/teaching fields with
youth, correct?

I apologize if t his is a bit scattered, as I had to type this out between a
class break.  It's not as coherent as I'd like, but it's a start.

take care,

todd

____________________________
The "original" thesis in 3 points:

1- "Even the computer...has not been able to show a consistent record of
improving education."

2-  " Whether or not these assessments are the last word, it is clear that the
computer has not fulfilled the promises made for it."

3- "...I think we will see that educational computing is neither a revolution
nor a passing fad, but a Faustian bargain. Children gain unprecedented 
power to
control their external world, but at the cost of internal growth"

- quotes from the article


thesis point one is flawed because there is no technology, learning tool,
learning pattern, etc. in the history of mankind that is consistent in
improving education beyond the simple act of actively engaging one's mind to
learn new things.  Books could be said to have an inconsistent record of
improving education: nearly every school child has access to them at 
some level
and yet we still have dropouts and academic failures, and this occurred long
before the advent of computer-based learning.

This leads to the flaw thesis point 2: namely that the computer has failed to
meet some vaguely characterized "promise" to change educational 
experiences for
the better.  But just as you can't thwack a child with a book and 
expect him/her
to suddenly know Thoreau, you can't toss computers at children and 
techno-averse
teachers across the world and hope for a digital renaissance.  There 
needs to be
a  thoughtfully produced, structured teaching program administered by 
competent
individuals. Moreover, enough time should be given to the whole process before
we expect to see impressive results on a large scale.

I can say that computers are tremendously altering the face of 
education at the
undergraduate and post-graduate level.  In medical school and the 
sciences, computers have drastically improved upon traditional means 
via visualization of
complex phenomena in the form of animated charts/pathways; video cartoons of
microscopic phenomena in "faster-than-life" time to rapidly convey key aspects
of long term events unobservable over the course of a normal school term; and
even in the day-to-day lectures, most of which are all powerpoint and 
available
for download later, allowing students to actually *listen* to instructors more
intently rather than scramble to write down as much as possible.

New "virtual" lessons about distant locations are excellent vehivcles 
to educate
children about foreign cultures amd exocitc lands, but they were dismissed out
of hand by the author (" The student doesn't actually soar above the Earth,
doesn't trek across icy terrain, doesn't climb a mountain" ... please, 
as young
children they aren't going to do this anyway.)


The 3rd thesis point is contradicted by the author's very own  evidence.  If
there is little or no internal growth and connection to the outside world and
its people, then why did the children cooperate together to get their web
assignment done?  How did the trio of likeminded "hackers" the author cites
come together and agree to cooperatively probe their schools network security?
Isn't this the very set of social skills being negotiated during the recess
process? Is the author really suggesting that cooperation in the context of
programming is different than cooperation in, say, dodgeball? Is he asserting
that prior to internet accesskids didn't break rules and hide from hall
monitors ( a human security system at school?)

As the thesis shifts more towards a moral/ethical debate the conradiction gets
worse.  For example, juxtapose the following excerpts:

"Early in the program, a video showed how a fourth grade class in rural Iowa
used computers...toward the end of the video, a student discussed the 
important
lessons he had learned: always be nice to each other and help one another. "

"The medium is so compelling that it lures children away from the kind of
activities through which they have always most effectively discovered
themselves and their place in the world...the need to negotiate relationships,
the importance of all members of a community..."

Or, consider the following:

"In the video, students proudly demonstrated their work, which included a
computer-generated "spider" jumping across the screen and an animated
stick-figure boy swinging from a hayloft rope."

"And then what exactly is awarded? Here is one of the most underappreciated
hazards of the digital age: the problematic nature of a child's newfound
power?and the lack of internal discipline in using it. The child pushes a
button and the computer draws an X on the screen. The child didn't draw 
that X,
she essentially "ordered" the computer to do it, and the computer employed an
enormous amount of embedded adult skill to complete the task"

It seems as if the author not only contradicts himself with his own 
examples, he
has failed to appreciate the cooperative nature of group programming exercises
and the tremendous investment of intellect, dedication, and hardwork necessary
to see such projects to completion.  Sure, there are plenty of "just press the
X" moments in using computers ins school.  Then again, there are plenty of
"just press penthouse" elevator moments in tall buildings: we're not expected
to build a pulley system ourselves everytime we wish to visit the Hancock
observatory anymore than a child should be expected to program a GUI each time
he/she wishes to use a program.

Calculators, computers, all these things *are* tools (as the author 
dismisses.) They are designed to aid in the acquisition of knowledge, 
the automated control
of the mundane or repetitous, and to assist in precision-based skills and
activities that exceed the operational capabilities of human beings.

What's more, the embedded human skill that draws the "x" for our 
representative
child is no different than the embedded natural law that creates the outdoor
"blooming rose".  They are both examples of rules that exist outside of the
child's control but they are rules nonetheless: in each setting one must learn
to negotiate such rules, understand them and their nuances, and to predict and
adapt from learned experiences.

I could go on, but I have some work to do. All told, the author fails 
report the
actual success of computer based learning, programming classes for young
children, new instruction based applications of AV technology, etc. to enhance
the overall pursuit of ever more complex information.  The computer is not a
moral compass, it is not ethical barometer.  Computers nothing to do 
with these
things. People are now as they have always been: flawed, broken, in need of
direction from those gifted with wisdom and experience. Removing an 
educational
tool doesn't strike me as the best way to meet those needs.




Quoting D Hartwick <hartwick3d at hotmail.com>:

> Hi Todd
> Cool!  What didn't you like about the article?  I don't consider 
> myself an education expert, but I thought the points about 
> eliminating recess were interesting, among others.
> Darrell
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Michael Thompson" <mtt at mit.edu>
> Reply-To: <youthlearn at milhouse.edc.org>
> To: <jeepabw at abetterwaymuncie.org>
> CC: <galaxy at lincboston.org>, <random at cambridgevineyard.org>,   
> <youthlearn at phoenix.edc.org>, <ctcmembers at lists.ctcnet.org>
> Subject: [YL] Re: [Random] digital literacy
> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:00:45 -0500
>
> this is not meant to be to confrontational, but I wanted to put this 
> out there
> as a second opinion on the Orion article:  though it makes a few 
> decent points
> worthy of consideration, that article is overall deeply flawed and
> self-contradictary in both it's reasoning and conclusions.
>
> If anyone is interested in why I say this, I would be glad to discuss it
> off-group.
>
> All of that being said, thank you Matt for posting the article and also
> posting
> the link to your blog. I think you are right on about senior citizens
> and their
> awesome wealth of experience and wisdom.
>
> take care,
> todd




****************************************************************************
*********************
This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
information that is legally privileged, confidential and exempt from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution, or copy of this message, or any
attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please notify the original sender immediately and delete this message,
along with any attachments, from your computer. Thank you

****************************************************************************