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.