In this post, I explore the following:
Can we leverage technology while keeping human connection
and reading at the center of learning?
This post is part 3 of my unintentional series discussing Jonathan Haidt’s latest TED talk.
Originally, it was meant to be a single blog post, but I wanted a) to dig deeper into what was being said and b) take some time to let what I read previously sit with me for a bit. The ability to slow down and reflect in a fast-paced, constantly changing world is an essential skill, no matter your age.
In part 1, I discuss the idea of going beyond Haidt’s concept of being a “Techno-Skeptic” to becoming “Techno-Curious,” a combination of both skepticism and curiosity. We should be able to understand both the pitfalls (skepticism) and the opportunities (wonder) of technology and learning in general.
In this post, I am going to address the other two points Haidt shared in his talk on how we need to do the following:
- Prioritize people and books in education, not screens
- No artificial relationships for minors
To anyone who has read my blog over the years, it is not shocking that I agree with what Haidt shares, but, as always, there is nuance. I will get to that soon.
But first, a story from my time as a teacher that has really influenced my thought process today.
This is a story I had forgotten about until I stepped away from writing these posts in response to Haidt’s TED talk. In all honesty, I still struggle to share it because it is nuanced, which, again, I think is the point.
It is tough to see solutions as one side of the spectrum or the other, because complexity is something we need to deal with in all facets of life.
But I think it makes sense to share this story because of that exact complexity.
Early in my career, I taught a high school technology class when technology was much slower than it is today.
We are talking dial-up, screech noises, slow.
This is the early 2000’s, and although we had access to the Internet, when major news events would happen, we would either go to the library to watch them on TV, or wheel that TV cart into your own room, pushing, not pulling, as there was a sign that pulling it could lead to the TV falling on you. This was mobile (cart) technology in my first years of teaching.
Because the Internet was so new (or at least felt that way), fear of the unknown was extremely high, not only among students but also among staff.
Wifi wasn’t really a thing, and I still remember working with a district that had Wifi for its teachers, but they wouldn’t give them access. When I finally talked them into it, the password looked more like a serial code with characters I did not even know had existed or have been able to locate since.
It reminded me of this meme that has been shared for years:
I remember arguing with the tech director of our school district at the time, asking him to allow for access to a website with a chat function for teachers to discuss professional learning.
This was probably right around the time MySpace had started. It was new technology, and I thought it would be really beneficial for staff, no matter their discipline, because it was specifically a network for teachers.
He refused, arguing that if students found out there was any chat open, even if it was specifically for teachers, they would find it and use it to chat with one another behind the scenes. I did not have the authority or knowledge to win that argument, so it was never opened.
It was not only me who was frustrated with this process and the lack of access for professional staff.
Many of my colleagues pleaded for websites to be opened for educational use, but they were often dismissed because, if it didn’t get through the filter, it wasn’t allowed to be used by anyone, including staff.
And that filter was strong.
We had the Internet as staff, but we weren’t really allowed to use it. So eventually, people would give up and not even try.
As the head of technology for the school, my role was more about fixing and taking care of stuff for others, no matter the job description.
It is one of the reasons I warn people not to include technology in their title unless their job is to fix it. The problem with having “tech” in your title is that others see you as responsible for anything powered by electricity.
I have long advocated for “innovative teaching and learning leads” over “EdTech” because you can use technology in the role, but innovation is more focused on creating “new and better” learning opportunities rather than inserting technology into everything. When the focus is on EdTech, technology is the hammer, and you are constantly searching for nails, whether they are there or not.
Deepening learning should be the goal, whether or not technology is used. Using “tech” for the sake of using it is a terrible focus, and I guarantee Haidt would agree.
Each week, part of my role was to clear space on the server so we wouldn’t run out of storage (which actually happened). The “cloud” at the time was just something we saw in the sky when we weren’t looking down at our flip phones.
I would tell students that if they had any images or videos on their accounts and did not specifically notify me of their educational use, they would be deleted at the end of each week.
Every Friday, I would run a scan to clear space, which seems so long ago that it seems so archaic even to discuss here. The staff and students were aware of this process.
One day, I am walking in the library and a student pulls me aside and say, “Hey Mr. C…I think that student is doing something wrong over there on the computer.”
I don’t want to get into the details of what happened, but it was not good.
Really bad.
The student not only found their way around the filters, but also knew my process for identifying media and how I would delete it.
Suffice it to say, the student knew they had done something horribly wrong, and there were severe consequences as a result.
There is more to the story than I am sharing in this post, and although I initially wrote it in great detail, I decided to delete it and provide a more generic version. I share that with you because being thoughtful of what I should share online and how it might affect others is a skill that needs to be developed at all ages.
After reflecting on this story and what happened, I identified some key takeaways I wanted to share with you.
First of all, if someone wants access to something, they will probably find a way. That is tough, and why, as much as I believe that there should always be filters in some capacity to block out sites from schools, the best filter we can provide in education is the one we put into a student’s head.
That filter will also see its share of trouble, but focusing on developing it in students is essential to their lives during and after their time in school.
Which leads to the second point.
Because the Internet filters in our school were so strong (obviously not strong enough), we never taught anything about digital citizenship, digital leadership, or anything of that nature. Not because it wasn’t important, but it just didn’t seem to be our problem. The filter will handle it.
There was one time I listened to a Superintendent say, “Since we have removed phones from schools, we have seen zero incidents of cyberbullying.”
My thought was, “Zero incidents during school hours.”
This was a problem that took time off between 9 and 3, but could permeate during non-school hours.
And I get that some break is better than no break.
But if you are getting bullied online after school hours, I promise you it will stick with you while sitting in a classroom.
My concern, again, is that when we don’t teach, that problem is delayed, not solved.
I want to be very clear about the story I shared previously. The student knew they did something wrong, and I believe in accountability. They severely messed up, faced consequences, and took ownership of the mistake.
But, as a teacher, I also felt some duty to equip students with those brain filters that would serve them in and out of school.
So let’s get back to Haidt’s talk and Point 2: “Prioritize people and books in education, not screens.”
You would be hard-pressed to find an educator who doesn’t “prioritize people,” and, again, although this is probably mentioned more toward EdTech companies than toward teachers, I get the point.
When I wrote the first post, Andrew Marcinek shared this insightful observation that I would love to share here:
“The ban-vs-adopt fight misses the point either way. Banning is easy. Dumping devices in is easy. Both let us dodge the real job — helping students (and the adults modeling for them) build the judgment to do difficult, sustained, meaningful work with these tools. Intentionality has always been the operative variable.” Andrew Marcinek
Couldn’t agree more.
I have appreciated Andrew’s work for years and loved his take. We met years ago via social media, and although I am not sure of the exact number, I may have met him in person once or twice. The confusion stems from Andrew being a real person and believing that both our interactions online and offline matter. I have learned from him (a real person) over the years in different formats, and I am appreciative of that opportunity today, which did not exist in the same way when I first started teaching in the 1900s.
In fact, many of my friends today are people with shared interests whom I met on social media before meeting in person.
For years, I have shared that if technology doesn’t deepen learning and improve relationships, then I don’t see the long-term value.
As Haidt notes, people should be prioritized, but we have ways to connect today that differ from when I was growing up.
Here is another example.
About a decade ago, I remember asking a group in a workshop to raise their hands if they were in a relationship with someone they had met online before meeting in person. One person reluctantly raised their hand, while several others were lying. They seemed to be a bit embarrassed.
If you asked that same question today, would there be the same amount of trepidation? There are definitely negative interactions that have come from online connections, but I can also tell you that there are positive opportunities as well.
Think of the kid growing up in a small town with very few shared interests with people in their school or grade level, but now can connect with people with common pursuits and passions?
That is a scary statement to say the least, which is why guidance is imperative. (More on this soon!)
To Haidt’s other point in the sentence on prioritizing “books,” I kind of agree.
I prefer the term “reading” and have even argued that if you could do “One Thing” in education to improve everything else in school, it would be to really focus on reading and writing.
But does reading this blog post count in that scenario? As an aside, does writing this blog post count? I would say yes.
I have written several books over the years, and that never would have happened if I had not started this blog.
Before writing those books, I always struggled with the idea that I was an “author.”
Is an author someone who writes books, or someone who writes?
Before writing my first book, I had written over 500 (minimum) blog posts. Did that make me an author?
If not, do you think I would have written a book if those posts didn’t come first?
My advice to people who want to write a book is to start a blog.
We live in a time where someone else doesn’t decide for you that you can become an author; you can decide that for yourself.
Many have followed that process and have written books. They did not wait for someone to say their work was “good enough” to publish. They started and made that pathway for themselves.
I also caution against the idea that “books” are the only form of reading, based on my own experience as a student. I was told, as a student, not to bring magazines to class because that wasn’t real reading, yet my number one influence for writing is Rick Reilly, who wrote the backpage article in Sports Illustrated for as long as I can remember.
That “fake reading” made me the “fake writer” I am today.
Any time a kid (or an adult) reads, I think it is a good thing, no matter the medium.
Reading doesn’t have to be limited to physical, paper books.
The last point Haidt shares is: “No artificial relationships for minors.”
I agree.
I might even add adults.
Two considerations for this point.
Firstly, at the beginning of Haidt’s TED Talk, he said the following, and it kind of grabbed my attention:
All right, now let’s look at EdTech. Of course, there are good uses of technology in education.My kids have learned a lot from Khan Academy, but I’m very concerned about what happened when we started putting computers and tablets on kids’ desks. (At 5:08 of the Talk)
Why did Khan Academy get a pass?
Years ago (2013), I shared that although Khan Academy could help some students, the focus should be on connecting personally with students:
For all students to excel, teachers must learn about them and connect with each child.
This is not just about finding out how they learn, but it is finding out who they are. It is essential that we get to know our students, learn their passions, and help them find out how we can engage them in their own learning. (The “Flipped” Classroom and Transforming Education, 2013)
So, although I have been an advocate of leveraging technologies to deepen learning and connect on a human level, in 2013 and today, like Haidt, I believe the most important thing we can do in education is to know our students on a human level.
This is probably why Haidt left out Khan Academy from the companies. Because if you watched the entire talk at the end, Sal Khan (at 16:49) is actually in the audience and comes on to the stage with Haidt.
Would Haidt have added the Khan Academy caveat in his talk if Sal Khan wasn’t sitting in the audience?
Because when you go beyond the screen and see the person, everything changes.
Just something to consider.
And when Khan Academy was mentioned in the talk, and then Haidt references “No artificial relationships for minors,” my first thought was the below video, I had some concerns about which was Sal Khan and his son interacting with an AI tutor on ChatGPT:
I appreciate that Sal Khan was in on this experience with his son, but of course, we should have concerns with this because the lines can easily blur, and as I mentioned, even with adults.
Some mornings when I am walking my dog, Suggs, I will “talk” to ChatGPT and get updates on news, the stock market, etc.
But there was one moment that freaked me out, which was more of a “me” issue than anything.
As I was signing off, I said to ChatGPT, “Thanks…Have a great day!”
And then I caught myself and said, “Why would I even say that? You are not real.”
To which the “voice” said, “I am very real!”
I could not swipe out of that application soon enough!
So yes, the idea of “artificial relationships” is terrifying at all levels, and again, this is why guidance is necessary.
Coming to the end of this three-part series, which stemmed from seeing a 90-second Instagram video and is almost 10,000 words (my last book, “Forward, Together,” was just under 50,000 words for comparison), here are some personal takeaways I wanted to share.
1. Many of the concerns Haidt shares in his TED Talk and his book are concerns I have, and continue to have. We just might differ on solutions.
2. You might not agree with me on a way forward, and I might not agree with you. But the most important thing is that we are having the conversation about how best to help students and each other.
3. Several of the issues Haidt shares are not just “kid” issues; they are also adult issues.
For years, I have shared that “change” is not the thing we should be most concerned about, but rather the “speed of change.” As a society, so many things were thrust upon the world that no one had experience with, and we are all trying to figure them out.
4. And lastly, an affirmation that I have had for years.
If our use of technology does not deepen learning or improve human connection, then we shouldn’t be using it.
Making a guess, Haidt would agree with the above statement.
Writing these blog posts knowing that anyone in the world can read them, as a response to a TED Talk that I was able to have access to while not being in the audience, and engaging with others via email and social media on what I shared, have shown that if we are thoughtful in how we use this technology, it can make us think more deeply about what we share, and what things we disagree on, and more importantly, the things we agree on, that we can build upon moving forward.
But I also want to go back to why I wrote these posts in the first place. Because Haidt’s work and latest TED Talk will likely come up in future speaking engagements, and if I haven’t engaged with content I didn’t necessarily agree with, I would be ill-prepared to respond to pushback from people in the room.
Clive Thompson once said, “Having an audience can clarify thinking. It’s easy to win an argument inside your head. But when you face a real audience, you have to be truly convincing.”
This platform, knowing people can read what I wrote, makes me think more deeply about what I am sharing.
Moving Forward
There is a famous quote from Marshall McLuhan that I think of often:
“We shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us.”
And being aware of that sentiment, my thought is that it is true unless we choose to shape ourselves and use these tools with intentionality.
To help others, we have to see the pitfalls and opportunities, be “Techno-Curious” (skepticism and wonder), and focus less on how technology will shape us and more on who we want to become in a world where technology and change will forever be the constant.
Human connection, learning, and teaching should always remain at the center not only of what we do in education but also of society.
We might not agree on how we get there, but it is safe to assume we want to end up in the same place.
