Thank you, Natalie. Truly a topic of monumental importance. I had the sheer privilege of attending the Teachers’ Convention in Calgary last year, where Jared descended from the mountain as our celebrity prophet, whipping the masses into a frenzy with his charismatic sermon-like talks and a very well-produced digital slideshow. The Kool-Aid was flowing, and the crowd was guzzling. The proud technophobes marched out heavily armed with their ultimate confirmation bias: Technology is the root of all evil! Look at Sweden, leading us back to the promised land by banning screens and forcing children to handwrite their essays with quill and ink like the good old days! Now, I’ll admit the man made a few solid points that were hard to completely ignore, but call me crazy; I still think we need a little something called “balance.” Until then, my deeply passionate, incredibly toxic love-hate relationship with AI continues!
Great insight. I teach middle school math and I’ve found that profiteers of public education must claim what we use is completely broken and must be dismantled in order to sell their wares. Whether it is Edtech pushing their programs or “researchers” who want a slice of that sweet education funding, none will profit if they claim any method or philosophy currently being used is even slightly beneficial. Teachers, and more importantly students, are caught on this seesaw of conflicting ideas that districts blindly adopt. A novel approach would be to let teachers decide and hold us accountable for our ideas.
A very important discussion to be having. Both sides have valid points, but I think we can all agree that completely eliminating technology is not the solution. We are also failing to address a significant part of the issue: the nature of the technology itself and how it is used in education. In my experience as a secondary school teacher, technology is not always being used purposefully to enhance learning. However, this is not the fault of teachers or schools. The complexity of digital ecosystems in most schools is overwhelming and inefficient. Software and apps do not communicate well with each other, and schools are limited by security requirements, usability issues, and cost.
We are still early in the edutech game, and I hope this discussion includes a serious review of the usability and accessibility of edutech itself before technology in classrooms is demonised. This is an issue that is often overlooked. It is not always about the system itself or about teachers’ classroom practice. Much of the technology teachers are expected to use every day, let alone to create engaging and enriching learning experiences, is flawed. Many of the most effective features sit behind paywalls. School IT teams are not always trained in education, and executives who are not teaching are often making poor decisions about the edutech teachers are required to use. There is also little consideration of efficient workflows when learning management systems are set up. Good edutech should support teachers and support learning. Most platforms are capable of doing that, but only if decision-makers enable those features or pay for them. Too often, both the funding and the knowledge needed to support teachers in creating strong learning experiences for students seem to be in short supply.
Thank you, Mrs. Trkulja, for this call for balance and common sense. One thing is what I mentioned as family reliance on devices with very young children and another is how well trained teams can use technology in education.
Definitely! There are so many factors impacting children and technology, we can’t keep shining the light on all the factors around it, the tech itself needs to be investigated and cop some of the blame that parents and teachers usually get
I spent my decade as a teacher trying to improve the always-shoddy implementation of edtech. Would full-analog be better? Quite possibly with the right resources and culture shift. I spent my own education and some of my teaching career in low-tech Waldorf schools, where a lot more is different than lack of screen time (parental wealth included). The problems have systemic roots not only in widening macro inequality or micro staff and vendor behavior at the school and district level, but also at the oft-missed meso-scale (my spellcheck doesn’t even know the word) where things like taxation, funding, and compensation structures live, and where a culture of mediocrity and education’s lack of prestige as a career are reproduced.
Yes, teachers, please don't get rid of devices in classrooms, or in homes. Obviously education technology can boost learning when used wisely. My app Read Me A Story tries to align with cognitive science by addressing Harvath's three key concerns - distraction inside classrooms, lack of empathy, and transfer of knowledge and vocabulary. It does so by enabling teachers, parents, family, or others to record classic storybooks for their little ones to experience, internalize, and read back. Bonus is it is scalable for little cost when positioned to attack the widening socioeconomic gap in childhood literacy.
I will look into the app as well. As far as classroom teachers are concerned, whether it’s technology or any other form of learning modality, the problem arises from districts forcing implementation of something that got sold to them. Teachers can craft their lessons to reach and engage students. I cannot use a prescribed program to do the same. It doesn’t have my personal touch to it. It’s like claiming anyone could direct a Hollywood movie because we were given the same screenplay.
I moved from Secondary to Elementary, and even to Pre-school, on changing countries as a teacher. As a result, I have been encouraged by my colleagues to consider the role played by the absence of sensory experiences, which may be due to the early and continuous use of devices, in explaining what happens later on. Families communicate less. Kids do less. I think there is research that suggests urban poverty makes this worse. If children don't develop gross motor skills, their fine ones don't get developed and their eye movement goes out the window too. Then their reading gets delayed. Communication and oracy, as the sibling of literacy, suffer. As someone specializing in Primary and Early Years Science, I also see fewer observation and focus skills, as well as reduced resilience and constancy. In later years, learners get textbook and screen representations, as opposed to hands-on, and we have another factor to consider. Add poor diets to the mix and the students' concentration goes down even further.
I've been talking about the crossover between gross and fine motor skills for years! Also critical to development is contralateral patterning which is impacted by kids walking with their devices, it prevents the arm swing and impedes overall movement. So many implications to explore...physical movement leads to cognitive movement. I'm a Literacy Specialist and Certified Personal Trainer, so these pairings are my jam.
Following you link - ‘relying on brief passages and excerpts’, the teacher referred to : “Realizing that students couldn’t be counted on to do any reading for homework, (the teacher) turned to increasingly shorter novels before ultimately abandoning teaching whole books altogether.” That the teacher, in the course of reading, had never picked up on the students’ confusion says far more about the ‘teaching’ than anything else. Food for thought.
Hey Natalie - sorry late to this party! Find it difficult to disagree with anything you say here. Just on the two points you raise:
First - according to NAEP, PISA, and TIMMS, the SES performance gap narrowed across the 1990's and 2000s (admittedly, these values uses proxies: official SES indices weren't introduced until the 2020s).
I am totally sympathetic to the SES question and am aware I do not have all the relevant data at my immediate disposal - so I definitely look forward to diving deeper into Reardon's work.
Second - at the turn of the century, the U.S. curriculum was acknowledged to be the busiest and most complex in the world (covering the most number of topics and introducing each earlier than other countries: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/0-306-47209-0). This, in fact, was one primary aim of common core in 2010 - to reduce the amount of material covered in a bid to allow for more depth within each subject.
What you're referencing is a very real problem: the IMPLIMENTATION of curriculum. I don't think there's much debate that teaching and testing have been increasingly dumbed down (attributable, in part, to the handballing of both to digital technologies), but this is qualitatively different than arguing curricula themselves have been dumbed down.
Again, I don't have all the data in the world, so am totally open to changing my tune on this one as well.
In the end, though, thank you for this. Again - can't disagree with anything you've said here and harbor the same sympathies. If we differ on the question of whether or not education in the early 2000s was broken, I think that's trivial: I see us in the same boat on the meaningful issues and am happy to be rowing alongside you.
Thank you for the gracious response, and I'm sure there is much that we agree on. But I don't think the question of whether education was already broken before the advent of ed tech in the early 2000s is a trivial one. If people believe that everything was just fine before ed tech came along, they may overlook other more fundamental problems that have prevented millions of students from reaching their full potential.
Totally agree - and I hope I don't come across as saying education was perfect (heck, my last book was 10 Things Schools Get Wrong). But I think it was in a much better position then we are in today, and if we can use that as our springboard for future decision making, I think we've a better chance to effectively tackle important issues than trying to leap off the creaky board we're currently standing upon.
Fantastic insight. I agree about too much screens but the real issue stems from two things; 1. Teachers being prescribed “programs” to teach from (that they have no say in or ability to alter) based on “research” and 2. The research and science of learning itself. Regardless of what “data” or “research” claim is the best way to learn, it is all useless if the presenter “the teacher” cannot motivate and inspire. Ask any kid what they want to do today and the answer will not be “I want to learn something” This is where the teacher comes in to use their expertise and passion to teach what otherwise would be of no interest to the student. When we subscribe programs to teachers, now we’ve taken there interest away as well. Now if teachers want resources, then research or data is helpful, but they are not going to magically make a child want to learn something.
Thank you, Natalie. Truly a topic of monumental importance. I had the sheer privilege of attending the Teachers’ Convention in Calgary last year, where Jared descended from the mountain as our celebrity prophet, whipping the masses into a frenzy with his charismatic sermon-like talks and a very well-produced digital slideshow. The Kool-Aid was flowing, and the crowd was guzzling. The proud technophobes marched out heavily armed with their ultimate confirmation bias: Technology is the root of all evil! Look at Sweden, leading us back to the promised land by banning screens and forcing children to handwrite their essays with quill and ink like the good old days! Now, I’ll admit the man made a few solid points that were hard to completely ignore, but call me crazy; I still think we need a little something called “balance.” Until then, my deeply passionate, incredibly toxic love-hate relationship with AI continues!
Great insight. I teach middle school math and I’ve found that profiteers of public education must claim what we use is completely broken and must be dismantled in order to sell their wares. Whether it is Edtech pushing their programs or “researchers” who want a slice of that sweet education funding, none will profit if they claim any method or philosophy currently being used is even slightly beneficial. Teachers, and more importantly students, are caught on this seesaw of conflicting ideas that districts blindly adopt. A novel approach would be to let teachers decide and hold us accountable for our ideas.
A very important discussion to be having. Both sides have valid points, but I think we can all agree that completely eliminating technology is not the solution. We are also failing to address a significant part of the issue: the nature of the technology itself and how it is used in education. In my experience as a secondary school teacher, technology is not always being used purposefully to enhance learning. However, this is not the fault of teachers or schools. The complexity of digital ecosystems in most schools is overwhelming and inefficient. Software and apps do not communicate well with each other, and schools are limited by security requirements, usability issues, and cost.
We are still early in the edutech game, and I hope this discussion includes a serious review of the usability and accessibility of edutech itself before technology in classrooms is demonised. This is an issue that is often overlooked. It is not always about the system itself or about teachers’ classroom practice. Much of the technology teachers are expected to use every day, let alone to create engaging and enriching learning experiences, is flawed. Many of the most effective features sit behind paywalls. School IT teams are not always trained in education, and executives who are not teaching are often making poor decisions about the edutech teachers are required to use. There is also little consideration of efficient workflows when learning management systems are set up. Good edutech should support teachers and support learning. Most platforms are capable of doing that, but only if decision-makers enable those features or pay for them. Too often, both the funding and the knowledge needed to support teachers in creating strong learning experiences for students seem to be in short supply.
Thank you, Mrs. Trkulja, for this call for balance and common sense. One thing is what I mentioned as family reliance on devices with very young children and another is how well trained teams can use technology in education.
Definitely! There are so many factors impacting children and technology, we can’t keep shining the light on all the factors around it, the tech itself needs to be investigated and cop some of the blame that parents and teachers usually get
I spent my decade as a teacher trying to improve the always-shoddy implementation of edtech. Would full-analog be better? Quite possibly with the right resources and culture shift. I spent my own education and some of my teaching career in low-tech Waldorf schools, where a lot more is different than lack of screen time (parental wealth included). The problems have systemic roots not only in widening macro inequality or micro staff and vendor behavior at the school and district level, but also at the oft-missed meso-scale (my spellcheck doesn’t even know the word) where things like taxation, funding, and compensation structures live, and where a culture of mediocrity and education’s lack of prestige as a career are reproduced.
Yes, teachers, please don't get rid of devices in classrooms, or in homes. Obviously education technology can boost learning when used wisely. My app Read Me A Story tries to align with cognitive science by addressing Harvath's three key concerns - distraction inside classrooms, lack of empathy, and transfer of knowledge and vocabulary. It does so by enabling teachers, parents, family, or others to record classic storybooks for their little ones to experience, internalize, and read back. Bonus is it is scalable for little cost when positioned to attack the widening socioeconomic gap in childhood literacy.
I will look into the app as well. As far as classroom teachers are concerned, whether it’s technology or any other form of learning modality, the problem arises from districts forcing implementation of something that got sold to them. Teachers can craft their lessons to reach and engage students. I cannot use a prescribed program to do the same. It doesn’t have my personal touch to it. It’s like claiming anyone could direct a Hollywood movie because we were given the same screenplay.
Thank you, Jon, for mentioning this app. I shall look into it.
I moved from Secondary to Elementary, and even to Pre-school, on changing countries as a teacher. As a result, I have been encouraged by my colleagues to consider the role played by the absence of sensory experiences, which may be due to the early and continuous use of devices, in explaining what happens later on. Families communicate less. Kids do less. I think there is research that suggests urban poverty makes this worse. If children don't develop gross motor skills, their fine ones don't get developed and their eye movement goes out the window too. Then their reading gets delayed. Communication and oracy, as the sibling of literacy, suffer. As someone specializing in Primary and Early Years Science, I also see fewer observation and focus skills, as well as reduced resilience and constancy. In later years, learners get textbook and screen representations, as opposed to hands-on, and we have another factor to consider. Add poor diets to the mix and the students' concentration goes down even further.
I've been talking about the crossover between gross and fine motor skills for years! Also critical to development is contralateral patterning which is impacted by kids walking with their devices, it prevents the arm swing and impedes overall movement. So many implications to explore...physical movement leads to cognitive movement. I'm a Literacy Specialist and Certified Personal Trainer, so these pairings are my jam.
Following you link - ‘relying on brief passages and excerpts’, the teacher referred to : “Realizing that students couldn’t be counted on to do any reading for homework, (the teacher) turned to increasingly shorter novels before ultimately abandoning teaching whole books altogether.” That the teacher, in the course of reading, had never picked up on the students’ confusion says far more about the ‘teaching’ than anything else. Food for thought.
Hey Natalie - sorry late to this party! Find it difficult to disagree with anything you say here. Just on the two points you raise:
First - according to NAEP, PISA, and TIMMS, the SES performance gap narrowed across the 1990's and 2000s (admittedly, these values uses proxies: official SES indices weren't introduced until the 2020s).
Around 2012, that's when gaps started widening once again. https://thedigitaldelusion.substack.com/p/the-equity-illusion-of-edtech
I am totally sympathetic to the SES question and am aware I do not have all the relevant data at my immediate disposal - so I definitely look forward to diving deeper into Reardon's work.
Second - at the turn of the century, the U.S. curriculum was acknowledged to be the busiest and most complex in the world (covering the most number of topics and introducing each earlier than other countries: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/0-306-47209-0). This, in fact, was one primary aim of common core in 2010 - to reduce the amount of material covered in a bid to allow for more depth within each subject.
What you're referencing is a very real problem: the IMPLIMENTATION of curriculum. I don't think there's much debate that teaching and testing have been increasingly dumbed down (attributable, in part, to the handballing of both to digital technologies), but this is qualitatively different than arguing curricula themselves have been dumbed down.
Again, I don't have all the data in the world, so am totally open to changing my tune on this one as well.
In the end, though, thank you for this. Again - can't disagree with anything you've said here and harbor the same sympathies. If we differ on the question of whether or not education in the early 2000s was broken, I think that's trivial: I see us in the same boat on the meaningful issues and am happy to be rowing alongside you.
Thank you for the gracious response, and I'm sure there is much that we agree on. But I don't think the question of whether education was already broken before the advent of ed tech in the early 2000s is a trivial one. If people believe that everything was just fine before ed tech came along, they may overlook other more fundamental problems that have prevented millions of students from reaching their full potential.
Totally agree - and I hope I don't come across as saying education was perfect (heck, my last book was 10 Things Schools Get Wrong). But I think it was in a much better position then we are in today, and if we can use that as our springboard for future decision making, I think we've a better chance to effectively tackle important issues than trying to leap off the creaky board we're currently standing upon.
Natalie, excellent essay that has sparked an illuminating discussion.
Thanks, Anne!
Thanks. Balanced and sensible. Overall I think The Digital Delusion is far more on- than off- target.
Fantastic insight. I agree about too much screens but the real issue stems from two things; 1. Teachers being prescribed “programs” to teach from (that they have no say in or ability to alter) based on “research” and 2. The research and science of learning itself. Regardless of what “data” or “research” claim is the best way to learn, it is all useless if the presenter “the teacher” cannot motivate and inspire. Ask any kid what they want to do today and the answer will not be “I want to learn something” This is where the teacher comes in to use their expertise and passion to teach what otherwise would be of no interest to the student. When we subscribe programs to teachers, now we’ve taken there interest away as well. Now if teachers want resources, then research or data is helpful, but they are not going to magically make a child want to learn something.
Thank you, Natalie. 🩵
In Bauman's words, liquid modernity.