listening
still thinking about digital natives and changing brains
In the PBS Frontline presentation digital_nation, by Douglas Rushkoff, and Rachel Dretzin, Dr. Clifford Nass was interviewed about his studies at Stanford on the performance levels of extreme multitaskers. “These are kids who are doing five, six, or more things at once all the time,” he observed. And he found that although nearly all of them boast of being very good at this practice, they weren't quite as good as it as they thought they were. “It turns out multitaskers are terrible at every aspect of multitasking. They get distracted constantly. Their memory is very disorganized. Recent work we’ve done suggests that they’re worse at analytic reasoning. We worry that it may be we’re creating people who may not be able to think well, and clearly” (Nass, Chapter 2). Even Rushkoff was disturbed at the cultural, and psychological, changes he's seen as a result of this increasing dependence on technology. To his chagrin, he was one of the early advocates of technology, and during the program showed footage of some of his earlier "naive" defense of—and dismissal of—concerns about technology. Computer gaming addiction is a big problem in Korea, Rushkoff reveals, to the point that the government has established recovery clinics for technology addicts - many of them children.
During one of my early clases in this master's program, Denvy introduced us to a book by Jane Healy, Failure to connect: how computers affect our children’s minds – and what we can do about it. (This memory was prompted by watching the first video, "When I Grow Up I Wanna Work in Advertising," posted in this week's reading. More on that later.) Before beginning this program in information technology, I really hadn't thought about computers negatively affecting more than my kids' attention spans. I assumed they were relatively benign tools actually, and underestimated their power to seduce. But with the increasing amount of handheld devices now at our disposal, the consequences haven't begun to be fully recognized. We've been steadlily compromising our ability to think deeply; and how to be "in the moment." We rarely carry out single conversations anymore - without the reminder that someone else is demanding our attention simultaneously. I already harped on this a couple weeks ago while at a convention in Austin - where I was never more than a foot away from some kind of technology. According to Healy, this focus on computers isn't all bad - but there are dangers. We risk educating students who lack the critical thinking and social skills to become leaders, whether in science and art, medicine and technology, or politics and communication. Deep, reflective thinking—much as the deep reflective reading focus of last week's lesson—is an incalculable skill. When most of our reading is done on the glowing screen of a 13" lap top, 8" tablet or 3.5" cell phone, chances are we're not spending the kind of time it takes to really "be" in that learning experience. Reading is more like a drive-by-shooting for many.
someone in hollywood is listening
The other night I watched an episode of The Closer. The show dealt with the murder of a high school principal, who was trying to "clean up" a school by forcing the school to improve its standardized testing scores. The suspect in the murder was the football coach - who was more concerned about his students thriving and living better lives than in their grade point averages. At stake, in the eyes of the principal and the administration, was the possible closure of the school by not meeting the federal standards. At risk, in the eyes of the coach (and parents at the school board meeting the night the principal was murdered), was the well-being and future of their students. Several of whom were living and training in the coach's home—illegally—rather than living on the streets. The murderer turned out to be one of the students living at his home, driven to murder by feelings of anger, fear and desperation.
There were no winners. The students who had been provided shelter by the coach, were removed to be placed in foster care. The coach lost his job due to his unlawful actions (providing a home illegally to minors). A wife lost her husband. To be fair, the show did show the principal as a compassionate person - weighing the needs of the many over the needs of the few, so to speak. He wasn't hateful. He was just supporting a flawed system of learning. What purpose would be served if the school was closed due to the loss of federal funding? And contrarily, what purpose is served by enforcing a system that guarantees certain failure of so many students? Grades kill, was one of the messages I took away from the show (or rather, the risk of poor grades brings that out in desperate people. The trust and conviction with which our school system places on letter grades is, well, tragic in this work of "fiction." But it carried a grain of reality, in my opinion. Our nation's dropout rate is testimony to this statistic. And thanks to what I've read from Ken Robinson and Alfie Kohn, my eyes have been opened to this unfortunate national educational addiction for high stakes testing.
What concerns me just as much as the compulsive testing in our schools, is the lack of curriculum options for our kids. When the arts are dropped because math and reading scores take precedence, we risk losing any possiblity of culturally-rich environment of learning. As an artist, this really grieves me. Will school really prepare them for their future aspirations? We have many teachers longing to encourage dreamers, but stymied by a system that puts so many dreams in check. When curriculum options are taken away, what will these future employees be qualified for? We're told that even at the college level, many of the jobs our graduates will apply for don't even exist now. And the way with which they are learning isn't helping. Learning technology is important, reading is crucial, and even memorizing rote values and mathematical formulas has merit. But the role that the arts and sciences plays in our education is critical to our "wholeness" and humanity. And even in our role as future employees. “Some of the best jobs in the corporate and professional worlds still go to literature or history majors," said Jane Healy in her book. "Why? Because they know how to think” (p. 106).
empowering students
Teachers like those at High Tech High and New Media Environments - they are really teaching learning. I want to go to there (one of my favorite Tina Fey quotes). I sooooo miss the tactile quality of creating art. Don't misunderstand, I do love my job, and the immediacy of creating digital art - it's fun and challenging. But I just don't get dirty enough. No paint on my elbows. No ink stains on my fingers. No smell of paper, canvas, pigment or linseed oil. No more hours spent in the dark room watching images come to life in birthing solutions. (That imagery is courtesy of my daughter-in-law's water delivery at Bella Vie a few weeks ago. I'm a grandmother of two, now.) Watching the students at High Tech High engaged in learning - with tools like hammers and nails!!! - I was so excited for them. I could almost smell the sawdust. I also really appreciated the focus on liberal arts and sciences, using technology as a tool, not substituting it for the physical act in the creation of something. I had to search for more information about this school. (See inspiring stuff at left.) I was inspired - and hopeful - about the direction of education for our youth.
Additional work cited
Healy, Jane. Failure to connect: how computers affect our children’s minds – and what we can do about it. Simon & Schuster. 1999.
