Interactive Product/ Interactive People

In Carlo Rotella's NYT article on tablets in schools, one contradition...paradox if you will...continuously caught my eye. In comparing the traditional, stationary classrooms of old to this new, digitized, tablet-ized world of technology in schools, a source describes the classrooms of the future.  He likened it to industrial shop floors designed for mass production: “People sitting in rows, all doing the same thing at the same time, not really connected to each other.” He contrasted that with a postindustrial workplace where temporary groupings of co-workers collaborate on tasks requiring intellectual, not physical capabilities. “We need a schoolhouse that prepares students to do that kind of work,” he said.  It jumped out at me, however, because that seems counter-intuitive to much of what we discuss in this class: how technology could be destroying our ability to interact face to face, causing us to spend time less efficiently, learn less effectively, etc. As much as I think, in certain situations, technology does foster a unique working environment, we have discussed the ways that in other situations it creates the exact isolated, not-really-connected scenario described as the original "old ways" counterpart. 

The passage that really clarified the confusion for me was this: “None of these studies identify technology as decisive.” Where technology makes a difference, it tends to do so in places with a strong organization dedicated to improving teaching and where students closely engage with teachers and one another. “A device that enhances such interactions is good,” Anrig said. “But kids focused on the device, isolated, cuts into that.”

The proof in the pudding may not be so much in the product...but rather the way it is used.  If you have a teacher who masters the flow of the technology, uses it seamlessly while still involving ever student and utilizing some face to face interaction mixed in with screen time, then of course this is evolutionary.  But that takes time and dedication.  My question is, in underfunded schools with low teacher-retention rates or even just classrooms with a slightly more apathetic instructor, will kids just stare mindlessly at their own individual screens all day...  “People sitting in rows, all doing the same thing at the same time, not really connected to each other.” 

This is not just an evolution of paper and chalkboard to screen.  The surface on which the students write and read cannot be the only "interactive" part of the classroom--regardless if that is a tablet or a good old fashioned textbook.  This has to be a total evolution in the way we teach kids in school if it is going to succeed. 

Rotella continues: Still, if everyone agrees that good teachers make all the difference, wouldn’t it make more sense to devote our resources to strengthening the teaching profession with better recruitment, training, support and pay? It seems misguided to try to improve the process of learning by putting an expensive tool in the hands of teachers we otherwise treat like the poor relations of the high-tech whiz kids who design the tool.

Yes.  Yes it does.