Thoughts: "The Outsourced Brain - New York Times"

The Outsourced Brain - New York Times by David Brooks. Read it here.
From the article: "...the magic of the information age is that it allows us to know less. It provides us with external cognitive servants."

I have been thinking a lot about the information age (vs. industrial age) and how technology is extending our minds (as it used to only extend out bodies). This op-ed really catches the essence of the current mind-extending possibilities of technology. Rest assured this is only the beginning... or is it?

Is it just the continuation of a trend that started when the first humans made the first tools?

McLuhan was the first to introduce me to the idea of extensions of ourselves (not personally, of course, but through his book "Understanding Media: the Extensions of Man") I was intrigued by his ideas (example: telephones are extensions of our voices), but it didn't really see technology extending my mind in my everyday life until I became dependent upon my cell phone and google to remember my friends phone numbers and where to find web pages and information that I want.

In the NYTimes op-ed (link above) Brooks claims that this mind-extension is liberating and blissful, but McLuhan often mentions that with extensions of man come amputations. Brooks can no longer navigate without his GPS and he feels zen about it, but what happens when the satellites go down? I am not comfortable with living in a world where I can't function without my tools. To use a historical example: the technology of guns extended mans ability to destroy people/things from afar but it amputated his ability to use a bow and arrow. What if then all the gunpowder ran out? As a pacifist I say all the better, but if people had a need for weapons they'd be screwed. Living in a time of transition from one technology to another this is the risk we face.

I hate to make this argument though because I hear it so often with regard to technology in education. Teachers say things like "why should we bring technology X into the classroom? Shouldn't we just stick with the old way of doing things?" Here is the rub, if you want to extend your mind you sometimes lose (amputate) an older way of doing things. I am sure there is a delicate balance between rushing headlong into adopting new extensions of ourselves and holding steadfast to tired old ways, but it is hard to know where to draw the line, especially within education when we are not only making the decision for ourselves, but for loads of children.

What I need is a good argument to convince educators that some technologies are more beneficial to students than traditional methods, others are not. Considering my argument against Brooks' GPS dependency, maybe I need to first convince myself.

Review of American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tregedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer by Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin.

From beginning to end I was captivated by the story if this enigmatic man, Robert Oppenheimer. He was sometimes arrogant, sometimes naive, and sometimes full of deep wisdom. He was sharp and charismatic to some, though others found him cold. He had a great gift for seeing the big picture and synthesizing ideas, which made him an especially effective leader of the scientists at Los Alamos working on one of the greatest scientific accomplishments of the century, the harnessing of atomic energy and the creation of the atomic bomb. He had to accept responsibility for the terrible destruction that his creation brought to the world but he didn't regret what he had done. At first I didn't understand why, but now I see his wisdom. The science which led to the making of the bomb was being realized by scientists all over the world and it was inevitable that someone was going to make it. In Oppenheimer's case, he felt it was urgent to beat the Nazis to it if they were indeed on track to produce it, which it turns out they really weren't, but he couldn't have known that at the time.

What left me most troubled after reading Oppenheimer's story was not his role in the creation of the bomb, but the way he was treated in the 1950's when his enemies sough to destroy him politically because they didn't agree with his pacifism. Oppenheimer was against the nuclear arms race and especially the creation of the hydrogen bomb, a much more powerful weapon than the atom bomb. The H-bomb couldn't really serve a military purpose, it wasn't even a city destroyer, it would destroy many cities at a time. In Oppenheimer's mind it would be more worthwhile to produce smaller tactical nuclear weapons for combat use, but the republicans in power felt that it would be wiser to instead focus on having the biggest bomb possible, thereby deterring anyone form ever attacking us for fear of total annihilation.

It is true that Oppenheimer had a past worthy of inspection for someone so close to so many national secrets, but despite the fact that no one managed to find him guilty of any crime other than making some "poor decisions" he was still left completely ruined by these accusations. Although the Atomic energy Commission "inquiry" found him totally loyal to America, they decided he was nonetheless a security risk. Why? Because he disagreed about the direction America was headed in foreign policy.

As I read the tactics used by his accusers I was shaken by the realization that nothing they did then couldn't happen today. While I don't want to believe that full scale McCarthy trials could happen in exactly the same way today I think a great scientist or intellectual like Oppenheimer could be taken down privately, the way Oppenheimer was, without justice and in the name of security. This kind of injustice does little to improve security, and even worse, it diminishes the likelihood that we as a society are going to come up with the solutions we need to face tomorrows security challenges because we have disbarred, alienated, or scared off our greatest minds from speaking up when they recognize a problem.

After finishing this book I sat and reflected upon the story and the potential for similar injustices taking place today and I wept. This story must be known by everyone.There is no black and white right and wrong to it, in the end Oppenheimer is not the golden hero, his enemies shamed, instead we are left to reflect upon our past and present actions, as Oppenheimer did his, and accept responsibility for our part in it, whether for good or for evil. Our ability to avoid future disasters depends on our ability to understand this and learn from it.

American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin. Vintage Books, New York. 2005

Here is a post I made today for my class on learning technologies:

All of the authors (Engelbart, Schank and Cleary, and Valdez) made a distinction between the role that technology currently plays in teaching and learning and the potential role that technology can play. What seems to be of most interest to the bloggers so far is why the potential usefulness of technology in the classroom has not been reached.

Most would agree that teacher competence/comfort with the technology is a primary requirement for the technology to be useful in the classroom, and as Laura added there are other factors, like administrative and tech support that are important too. I want to add one more requirement to the list before moving on: the software has to be well designed.

Something that resonated with me from Schank and Cleary is that the authors admitted to the shamefully poor design of most educational software out there. Granted they were writing in the 90's, but I think that is still the case today. A lot of software is still written from top to bottom with only a vague idea of who the user is going to be. If a teacher (or any user) can't sit down and immediately figure out how to use the software, then the developer has failed. This is my opinion as a software developer, but it is not an uncommon one. My point is that as much as educators (and all users) need to familiarize themselves with new technologies and approach them with a workable attitude, the technologies have to lend themselves to being easily understood. Unless the creators of educational technologies are working together with educators, no progress can be made towards reaching the potential of technology's use in the classroom.

So what is the potential role of technology in the classroom?

Like textbooks, technology can be a source of information. Like pencil and paper technology can be used for creative purposes. To quote form Valdez, "A reasonable conclusion is that classroom computers and other technology can play many instructional roles, from personal tutor and information source to data organizer and communication tool" (from the overview). I think technology is already being used as an information source (web-based research) and a communication tool (email), and maybe as a data organizer (blackboard, excel), but I don't think classroom technologies have yet to reach their potential as personal tutors.

Each student has unique abilities and interests, but it is exceedingly difficult for one person to attend to the varied needs and interests of 30 young minds in the typical classroom. Technology can help, although it will mean changing the way we think about schooling. Something that I think is the most important point that I took from my reading of Engines for Everybody is the need for more student-directed learning, what Schank and Cleary also called natural learning. To summarize Schank and Cleary about natural learning, students learn best when they are the ones choosing what to learn and when. This doesn't mean that kids should be turned loose in the streets, this can happen in a regular classroom with a regular teacher (check out this biology class example).

I would like to further discuss the ways in which technology is or can be used to personalize each student's education.