Is Technology Ruining a Generation of Learners? - Vuillaume / Frye

The following entry is an opposing view point discussion about whether or not technology is ruining a generation of learners.

Title:  Is Technology Ruining a Generation of Learners? -- By Desi Vuillaume - @djvuillaume

Over the summer a hot topic, especially for parents, was raised in an article published by The Atlantic, Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?  The article covers many topics with the current generation of students, who some might consider being one of the first digital native generations.  The article attempts to directly link the current generation as having a severe decline in mental health, social standing, and general awareness of the world at large.  The only bright spot was that the researchers found that teens are safer today than previous generations due to the fact that they would rather lock themselves in a room with a phone than be at a party.  The author, Twenge, believes that technology is slowing the growth rate, prolonging childhood into adolescence.  This stunts the independent nature of teenagers which can cause problems into adulthood.  

Let’s remember that there is always an opposing side; days after the original article, several researchers pushed back pointing out several flaws and factors not considered.  Christopher Ferguson, PhD, was quick to point out a bevy of research stating that “people who engage in authentic self-presentation…have improved mental health.”
Sarah Cavanagh, Ph.D., points out that a lot of the research in the original article is based on correlations which leads to causal claims.  The conclusion of the article brings to light that it is not the kids that are being ruined by smartphones but the parents that raise them.  Parents are “too busy looking down at our screens to look up at our kids.”  
Out of the two articles, it is clear that there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides.  As teachers, we need to cautiously look at both sides of the arguments.  We should not shun the technology but instead show students how to appropriately use, and ultimately limit themselves when in social situations.  

Alternate Viewpoint:  I am Not a Robot -- By Christopher Frye - @therealmrfrye

We’re not wrong to be concerned about increased use of computers, software, and applications for day-to-day use in the classroom, but I hesitate to classify any of these as “technology” or even “classroom technology.”  Technically speaking, the upgrade from chalkboards to whiteboards falls into the classification of increased use of classroom technology, but then again, so does the introduction of electric lights over candles and integrated HVAC units over opening the windows on a warm summer day.
The problem that I foresee most of the time is not based on technology, but rather on which person is in charge of it.  With all previous forms of technological advancement, it has been an adult who is responsible for how it is implemented and used.  While feedback from students is appreciated, we, the teachers, made previous decisions about classroom environments and classroom technologies because we know what is best for the students in front of us.  When that conversation shifts to the devices that the students have, and how they use them, we give up some of that decision-making process and often hope for the best results.  It is not a simple thing to usher in a level of complexity in the classroom that is highlighted by students controlling their own education.  As David Christian, creator of the Big History Project, alludes to in his 2011 TED Talk, the price of increased complexity is vulnerability and fragility.
If students have the power over what and when they learn, then we, the teachers, are vulnerable to the idea that we are no longer needed.  Furthermore, what sort of accomplishments can be made by a system of education that is so fragile that a single video game is enough to tear it down and create a declaration that kids are distracted and off task.  For me, it poses the question that it seems very few actually want to ask.
So what?
What happens if a person, sitting in my classroom, using a computer that I handed to him, willfully chooses not to engage in the lesson that I want him or her to learn, and instead is watching a youtube video of the greatest builds in Minecraft and how to recreate them?  It doesn’t mean that I’ve failed that student as a teacher, I’ve failed him or her as a person, because it isn’t that the student is choosing to ignore me, the all powerful teacher in the room, it’s that I’ve completely missed an opportunity to connect with said student.
Angela Maiers, author, speaker, and veteran educator in an interview with 1635 Magazine about her organization Choose 2 Matter, put it best when she said “Technology does not change lives. People do.”  And while there will always be a discussion about the best ways to integrate new and changing technology within the classroom, as long as that discussion focuses on the negatives of technology, we’re staying locked into the thought that we can be replaced by robots, or computers, or applications, or whatever we fear is coming next.
There is a further discussion that absolutely needs to be had.  Some companies are attempting to brand teachers, and through them their students, with specific products by giving them out for free.  It’s a strategy that all of the major technology companies have employed either consciously or unconsciously.  The creation of Apple Schools or Microsoft Schools or Google Schools only serves to highlight the dangers of private corporations influencing the behaviors of students.  It’s dangerous because it works.  Selecting a product or program because it is free to use, instead of one that furthers the growth of the students, does not meet the vital requirements of what teachers need to do every day: make decisions that are best for the students, not for themselves.
Are people more depressed because they have a smartphone?  Are they more distracted by the deluge of information and entertainment that is available at the touch of a screen?  Maybe, but maybe that’s not such a bad thing because we also notice it.  We see students that haven’t made a connection or aren’t engaged and we’re quick to blame the ease of personifying technology.  Instead of throwing our hands in the air and saying, “they’ll never learn if they don’t put down that device” can we instead find new and authentic ways of reaching out to those students.  If technology can ruin lives, then it can also save them, because technology is just a tool, and I am not a robot.  I can change what I do and think at any time and learn to use the tools to build instead of destroy, but I have to take that first vulnerable step of increasing the complexity of the learning in my classroom and in doing so, sacrifice a little bit of stability.  I am confident in the abilities of all teachers to adapt to the needs of their students, but I am even more confident that the adaptation itself hasn’t changed.  I am more than happy to replace my chalkboard with a whiteboard because it’s better for students, and if I can be willing to make that one little change, I am confident that they will come along for the ride.  Students, by their nature, are curious about the world around them.  Let’s shift the conversation from how technology is ruining their sense of curiosity and find out how we can use the tools they already have to build the skills we know that they will need.