Technology doesn’t widen the education divide. People do that
- Reference: 1631789110
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/09/16/edtech_divide_debate_against2_thursday/
- Source link:
This week's motion is: [1]Technology widens the education divide . Arguing AGAINST the motion today is JOE FAY, who has covered the technology business, and the UK’s inability to produce enough technology specialists, for 30 years. Joe has two teenage children and therefore knows the damage technology can to young people – and the damage that they can do to technology.
The COVID-19 pandemic has certainly highlighted disparities in access to technology. Whole families having to share a tablet, or even a not so smartphone, and a flaky data connection are clearly going to be at a disadvantage compared to their peers with a suite of MacBooks and full-fat broadband.
[2]
Likewise, students might be expected to benefit when their schools can ensure a high-def camera in every classroom, and adequately planned lessons. Those whose teachers struggle to even send out a few Word docs with web links, not so much.
[3]
[4]
But, with children largely returning to classrooms, this should all be less of an issue in the future – the next pandemic notwithstanding.
Catching up on what they’ve missed is undoubtedly an ongoing challenge. But addressing the social and development issues caused by prolonged isolation and inactivity is arguably far more important. What worries me more is a broader misperception of what tech is for, and what it can do. It’s an easy soundbite for whoever is in power to say they want every child to be tech literate, and able to code, so that the country can compete with India, or China, or whichever straw man the government has chosen this week.
[5]
In the UK, technology is perennially pitched as some kind of cure-all that will solve the country’s perceived lack of innovation, sluggish productivity and general decline. Successive governments repeatedly declare their intention to boost STEM education.
But this would be far more convincing were it not coming from a cabinet chocked full of politics, philosophy, and economics graduates. Yes, the STEM sector is important. But so are – for example – the creative industries, which are worth well over £100bn to the UK economy. Pulling out like for like comparisons can be difficult. But in 2015 there were 1.7 million jobs in the creative industries with almost another million in creative roles outside the creative industries. By comparison, there were 3.2 million jobs in high-tech.
We constantly hear about shortages of STEM workers: from scientists and engineers of all descriptions to techies. But, judging from the skilled worker shortage [6]list alone, Blighty could do with graphic designers, artists, musicians, dancers and choreographers. (Which makes last year’s [7]adverts suggesting ballet dancers become cyber security practitioners all the more ridiculous.)
[8]
It can seem that the government wants to force children into STEM jobs, whether or not they want to pursue these sectors. I wouldn’t want to watch a ballet performance by someone who’d never wanted to actually be a dancer. I probably wouldn’t want to use an e-payment system designed by someone who didn’t want to be a programmer.
And I really wouldn’t want to drive across a bridge designed by someone who’d never really wanted to be an engineer. I’m not saying children should be simply encouraged to follow their dreams. But we should be focusing more broadly on developing confident young people, who are able to make informed choices about their careers. Technology is part of this, but we shouldn’t obsess about it.
So, I have to conclude that while disparity of access is a bad thing, “technology” doesn’t widen the education divide. It’s governments and policy makers and vested interests that have a cock-eyed view of both technology and education that do that. So, I urge you to vote against the motion. And to vote for political leaders that really understand technology AND education. ®
Cast your vote below. We'll close the poll on Thursday night and publish the final result on Friday. You can track the debate's progress [9]here .
JavaScript Disabled Please Enable JavaScript to use this feature.
Get our [10]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/Debates/2021/09/13/education_divide/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offprem/saas&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YUNqPiif0M1EfcA5lj4DMwAAAYQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offprem/saas&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YUNqPiif0M1EfcA5lj4DMwAAAYQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offprem/saas&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YUNqPiif0M1EfcA5lj4DMwAAAYQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offprem/saas&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YUNqPiif0M1EfcA5lj4DMwAAAYQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/skilled-worker-visa-shortage-occupations/skilled-worker-visa-shortage-occupations
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2020/10/13/cyberfirst_ads_cancelled/
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offprem/saas&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YUNqPiif0M1EfcA5lj4DMwAAAYQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://www.theregister.co.uk/Debates/2021/09/13/education_divide/
[10] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
"what we do with it is our fault"
I agree. A important problem is the assumption that "technology" means computers" and they must be used everywhere. This has led in some cases to decline in the effectiveness of education. For example, practical exercises in physics (particularly electronics) are frequently conducted using (at elementary level) sealed computerised modules or simulation at more advanced level. This of course leaves out all the uncertainties that surround the use of real components, understanding of which distinguishes the expert in electronics from the non-expert.
An example of the problem is [1]the PHYS:BIT "potential divider" demonstrator, a closed design computerised wheeze which conceals the real (and incredibly simple) workings of potential dividers behind a crude representation that, for all the student knows, could be delivered by any mechanism at all, including just an arbitrary program driving the display. The truth is concealed to the extent that in one place the supplied lesson plan requires (specifically) a straight line to be drawn through some points on a graph and then asks " Can you explain why there is a straight line through the data in the Voltage versus Resistance graph. (Hint: Ohm’s law) ". A smart student might well respond " because you told me to draw one . Furthermore, the entire experiment could be performed for around the same cost using a few resistors, some jump leads and a really cheap pocket multimeter,. This would not only expose the real workings of potential dividers (including their idiosyncrasies) better but could be applied to other experiments as well.
Not every learning situation demands, or can even necessarily profit from, computerisation, and even where it's necessary the way it's applied can be an important consideration. I say that advisedly as the developer of an experiment automation application for controlling lab test gear. In such contexts, computers are extremely useful in support of observation and thinking, but cause serious problems when they're used to supplant them. We designed our application to automate the task as far as possible without concealing from the user either what is going on or how it works. As a result, the application can be used not only to automate vendor equipment but as a basis for developing and controlling one's own inventions. And that's what learning is really about.
[1] https://proto-pic.co.uk/product/physbit-kit-physics-classroom-add-on-for-microbit/
Re: "what we do with it is our fault"
What an excellent comment, one that explains how miss-applied intentions damage rather than enhance learning. I never got on with languages, in part because they were, to me, a series of meaningless black boxes, that changed according to some arbitrary rules. Physics, chemistry and maths moved things and did things in my day, linking cause and effect. Education needs the right tools available to a teacher with the right skill sets to choose the right tool for each objective they need to cover.
I am a teacher
Fourty years of experience tells me that what matters most are; language skills, social skills and problem solving/thinking skills. These include, of course good literacy and numeracy.
IT skills can certainly be included with those too and can even reinforce them, but ultimately the IT skills depend on that fundamental list.
But the key issue is the word I've used most- "skills".
Because education should not really be about skills. Skills are what we devolop within education. Education is about opening doors to understanding and opportunity.
Then the kids can see where their future direction lies, be it coding, tennis, fashion design, cooking or writing critically aclaimed novels that no one wants to read.
Teaching coding as a panacea is plain mad. Not more than a handful will have an aptitude for it, not all of them will want to pursue it for a lifetime. Many will absolutely hate it and may even have their attitude to education ruined by this and the whole Gradgrind, utilitarian approach to education we seem to have now.
It's not even a new thing. In the 60s and 70s it was teaching "workshop" for the lads- metal work, woodwork. For the girls it was cooking and typing, which with hindsight would have been a bloody sight more useful for most of us than knowing how to make a dovetail joint ( which I never did manage to do) or turn a lathe ( which they quite sensibly kept me well away from).
Ironically I learnt to code in options and afterschool and lunchtime groups- voluntarily .
Re: I am a teacher
I was taught "coding" in one form or another at three different points during my education. The lessons were either dead boring or were near-impenetrable. I came out of very few of them any the wiser.
What really spurred on my learning was a) a "java for dummies" book and the goal of making my own version of space invaders, and b) a massive organisational fustercluck at work that really needed streamlining and access to the internet.
I made the jump from MS Access form buttons, to macros, then to VBA within a few short months. I'm now developing websites in .Net
The problem with modern education is the focus. The focus is getting good grades in exams. The system doesn't care if the pupils understand the subject, just so long as the pupil can put the right answer on the exam paper. (My partner used to be a teacher and their pay was linked to the kids' exam results. Poor exams results meant a smaller pay packet) The reason for this focus is that exam results are easy to measure for league tables (and teacher's pay packets!) whereas "understanding" is far too nebulous to measure.
But it's understanding, ability to think & willingness to learn that I need as an employer. I don't give a flying fig about exam results (school, university, professional or vendor)
But school, college & university is more than just learning Maths, English, etc. It's also about developing as a person - and you don't do that from a powerpoint slide or YouTube video. It's about learning to respect others, make friends, asking that boy/girl out you've got the hots for (and making a fool of yourself in the process!) These things require real-world human interaction.
As to the question "Does technology help/hinder education", technology should be a helper, not the driver in education (unless you're teaching IT!) A crap teacher will still be a crap teacher even if you give them (and their pupils) £100k of the latest education tech. A pupil is unlikely to grasp fundamental concepts better or quicker if they have the latest laptop and fastest broadband. A great teacher could probably deliver an engaging & productive lesson in a bare room.
Unfortunately I can only give you one upvote. I won't name the University, I'll just say it is in the Russell group, but I remember the ordering of topics in a course I was to teach being dictated by when the kiddies had to take their little tests, rather than in the underlying logic of the subject. That just summed it all up for me.
This ties in well with some coments in this El Reg thread
When the target becomes more significant than what it is intended to measure
https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2021/09/13/who_me/
That being said, in the UK and I think the USA targets ( and UK OFSTED) probably are more about keeping teachers in line. The idealogues within governments wanting us to teach stuff we know is of little value in ways we know don't work.
(An obvious example, few teachers -even the younger ones- have much belief in the value of relying on phonics for teaching reading. But the behaviourists whom the government trust and the vested interests they listen to love it. It's cheap to produce, simple to undestand and easy to maeasure. It might not make the kids good readers. But they'll reach benchmarks and sell lots of stuff.)
Indeed
Do hammers or wheels or aeroplanes affect the education divide? Only if wielded by people who are trying to affect it or don't care if they do. Technology is just an enabler, what we do with it is our fault.