The Future Does Not Compute

I have a very good friend who taught English for many years at a private girls' school before retiring. She has a continuing passion for education. When I told her I was taking a class on educational technology she said with disdain, "I hope you don't think computers have anything to do with education." If she had not been such a lady, I think she might have spit on me! I need to pass Talbott's readings on to her. I think they would comfort her some and allow me to speak with her about distance education again.What my friend feared would be lost to education through the use of computers was passion, and she is right.

One of Talbott's criticisms of computers is that they are dependent upon the past to predict the future. Computers function by algorithms that are based on past experiences. If we can place past events, experiences, happenings, into neat pockets, then we can expect the patterns that result to continue indefinitely. However, algorithms lose cohesion when they hit a bump that disrupts their patterns. Algorithms do not account for passion, introspection or curiosity. they don't even acount for some of our baser personal instincts. (Can we blame our current financial crisis on computers that based their predictions on the future performance of stocks and markets on past performance, yet failed to take greed into account?) Truly remarkable results have occurred when a human being disrupts their patterns through incredible commitment to change.

Talbott talks about social isolation that results from over-reliance on "Knowledge Machines." Instead of teaching to the natural instincts of children, as Seymour Papert described in The Children's Machine, Talbott claims they rob children of the nurturing that comes from the personal relationship with a teacher who understands them. Talbott criticises the "supercomputer animations of subatomic transactions a video images of strange, unseen interiors (that) possess a certain wow factor, but...do not foster in the child either an understanding of the world or a more eager pursuit of scientific discipline." This technology fails, says Talbott, because what a child really really wants is someone who will respect his/her interest in a subject and not just provide the facts. "The respect and reverence with which a subject is treated, the human gestures with which it is conveyed, the inner significance the material carries for the teacher--these are infinitely more important to the child than any bare, informational content."

It seems to me, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Hasn't an inspired and devoted teacher always been more successful than the dry, boring lecturer who may have a boatload of degrees and credentials to validate his learning? Technology is not the villain in education...uninspired teaching is. When computers are emplyed by creative teachers, they have ability to enhance learning as any other tool.

I have a feeling my friend the retired teacher possessed her own "wow" factor that could never be duplicated or replaced by a machine. Her power was in her passion for her subject (literature and writing) and especially for her students. She still keeps in contact with her students. I never heard of anyone keeping in touch with a computer.