Will High-Tech Kids Still Think Deeply?

I find it interesting that the article “Now More than Ever: Will High-Tech Kids Still Think Deeply”, by Mary-Claire Tarlow and Katherine L. Spangler (2001), addressing technology replacing critical thinking was written in 2001 because the last five years seem to have gone even further in producing efficient technologies and perfecting communication. Yet, there has hardly been a dent in how most schools use technology in the classrooms. Computer usage is often a 30-minute-a-day type of activity that is simply another lesson.

One thing that the authors were afraid of is movies or audio replacing books because it is faster. For a while now, books have been made into movies. Sometimes they are shown in classrooms, but usually after reading the book first to show the students another person’s interpretation of the story. Using multiple mediums to present information, such as a book and video, reinforces a lesson, not detracts from it. This alone can lead to a more in–depth look at an author’s work as well as reinforce the ideas for the students that may not read as well. Teachers certainly do not excuse the students from reading the book and skip right to the movie, although, in some cases, students may generate more ideas after seeing the movie than reading the book. This does not mean that critical thinking or reflection has gone away, it is just a different way of getting to it. Moreover, this method has been prevalent in schools for years.

Even if the use of technology creates a slight shift in critical thinking, is this always a bad thing? At a study conducted in the UK, students at four different grade levels were put in groups and given a writing task to complete using a word processing program. In general, students spent more time working out the graphics for their writing than they spent on the actual writing itself. Since they could manipulate the size, fonts, and images readily, students did so until they were completely satisfied (in some cases never satisfied) with the results. At first, this may lead one to think that Tarlow and Spangler are right, this new technology is taking away from the students’ writing performance. On the other hand, it could be argued that now students are thinking even more critically about their compositions. Not only are they responsible for the writing aspect, but for the design as well. The ones who were not satisfied with their final product were those who did not feel like their design enhanced their composition.

Using a word processing tool gave students a greater flexibility and form of expression when it came to their writing. The teachers were having a problem keeping students focused simply because they were not teaching composition with the tools available. They were teaching it in a very linear fashion where only word choice and sentence structure mattered. Now, students are capable of adding design as another element. This visual element makes composition more appealing to students. So, instead of holding them back and teaching just word composition, why not use the tools to their full advantage, and teach presentation and design as well? If teachers meet students' needs, students will feel less frustrated with the outcome (Matthewman and Triggs, 2004).

In this one example, word processing technology could be seen as a distraction to students, which takes away from critical thinking in composition. If the students spend half of their time playing with the fonts, how are they learning anything? However, if teachers recognize that composition with a word processing tool merely gives students even more areas to think about, e.g. visual, then catering to that need could lead to critical thinking that encompasses more than ever before.

In short, as long as teachers recognize the changes that technology may bring to standard activities like composition, and embrace these changes rather than stifle them, students will stay focused on the task and more than likely, have an even richer experience. Technology is not meant to replace a students’s brain. It is simply giving students the opportunity to express themselves in more ways than ever. The only cause for concern is if teachers do not recognize the changes that technology brings and try to resist it creating a gap between what students are doing on their own time with technology and what they are doing in school. Using standard methods to teach when students are used to the fast pace and choice that comes with technology is what could create a gap between teacher expectation and student performance. It is not that students are not capable of thinking critically– they are just bored.

References:

Matthewman, S. and Triggs, P. (2004). ‘Obsessive compulsive font disorder’: the challenge of supporting pupils writing with the computer. Computers & Education, 43, 125-135.

Tarlow, M. and Spangler, K. L. (2001). Now more than ever: Will high-tech kids still think deeply? The Education Digest, 67,3, 23-27.

Of the six topics that were explored by our class and analyzed using McLuhan’s Tetrad, the one that caught my attention the most was “Tools Software”. I can see why they brought up some of the points they did but I do not tend to agree with all of them.

I do agree that Tools Software helps to move tasks along faster, like filing, researching and even editing. However, I do not agree that Tools Software can replace performance activities like the actual writing skills of a person or graphic design skills. Microsoft Word certainly does not make me a better writer in itself. I do not sit down at the computer and am suddenly struck with brilliance. Yes, if I spell something wrong it will alert me to that, but even then, I am the one that goes in and fixes it. This is the same as having someone read over your paper for errors, just a lot faster. Word processing programs allow you to finish your task more efficiently, but if you are a bad writer, they are not going to make you any better.

Likewise, it was said that Tools Software makes graphic design skills obsolete. Being a graphic designer myself, I beg to differ. Tools Software may give more people the opportunity to act as a designer, but again, that does not mean that they make good design. A brochure that is poorly put together and an eye sore to look at should be more than enough evidence that graphic designers are not obsolete. Designers are hired for their creative skills and their ability to use the tools available to them, in this case, software, to create engaging, useful products. Just because you know how to use Photoshop does not make you a graphic designer. That would be as silly as saying that since I know how to use word processing software, I am a novelist.

It is interesting to see that later in the analysis under what is overextended they do mention that just because people have Web software available they are not necessarily Web designers. If they concede this, it makes me wonder why they said designers will be obsolete. I think the confusion comes from the fact that these programs are now more affordable to anyone to own and the software itself is becoming more user friendly. So now, people can go out, buy the Adobe Creative Suite, and begin to use it even with no formal training in graphic design. But just like any word processing software that was available before, just owning the software doesn’t make you any more talented or provide you with the necessary background to create a successful design piece or novel. These tools merely make it easier for those who are trained in a specific area to use them efficiently and effectively.

Clearly, I do not agree with the analysis that Software Tools will replace anything that requires an actual thought process. I believe that Software Tools give people with specific knowledge the ability to create faster and edit more efficiently, giving them more time to perfect their output. The availability of this software to the general public may make some people think that they are designers, novelists, recording artists etc., but if they are not applying the basic concepts of the medium, they are simply playing around with computer software.

McLuhan Tetrad

Of the six topics that were explored by our class and analyzed using McLuhan’s Tetrad, the one that caught my attention the most was “Tools Software”. I can see why they brought up some of the points they did but I do not tend to agree with all of them.

I do agree that Tools Software helps to move tasks along faster, like filing, researching and even editing. However, I do not agree that Tools Software can replace performance activities like the actual writing skills of a person or graphic design skills. Microsoft Word certainly does not make me a better writer in itself. I do not sit down at the computer and am suddenly struck with brilliance. Yes, if I spell something wrong it will alert me to that, but even then, I am the one that goes in and fixes it. This is the same as having someone read over your paper for errors, just a lot faster. Word processing programs allow you to finish your task more efficiently, but if you are a bad writer, they are not going to make you any better.

Likewise, it was said that Tools Software makes graphic design skills obsolete. Being a graphic designer myself, I beg to differ. Tools Software may give more people the opportunity to act as a designer, but again, that does not mean that they make good design. A brochure that is poorly put together and an eye sore to look at should be more than enough evidence that graphic designers are not obsolete. Designers are hired for their creative skills and their ability to use the tools available to them, in this case, software, to create engaging, useful products. Just because you know how to use Photoshop does not make you a graphic designer. That would be as silly as saying that since I know how to use word processing software, I am a novelist.

I think that it is interesting to see that later in the analysis under what is overextended they do mention that just because people have Web software available they are not necessarily Web designers. If they concede this, it makes me wonder why they said designers will be obsolete. I think the confusion comes from the fact that these programs are now more affordable to anyone to own and the software itself is becoming more user friendly. So now, people can go out, buy the Adobe Creative Suite, and begin to use it even with no formal training in graphic design. But just like any word processing software that was available before, just owning the software doesn’t make you any more talented or provide you with the necessary background to create a successful design piece or novel. These tools merely make it easier for those who are trained in a specific area to use them efficiently and effectively.

Clearly, I do not agree with the analysis that Software Tools will replace anything that requires an actual thought process. I believe that Software Tools give people with specific knowledge the ability to create faster and edit more efficiently, giving them more time to perfect their output. The availability of this software to the general public may make some people think that they are designers, novelists, recording artists etc., but if they are not applying the basic concepts of the medium, they are simply playing around with computer software.