A colleague and good friend sent this review of The Flickering Mind to me, wanting to hear my rebuttal. Here it is!

This outdated book, The Flickering Mind, is based on very poor research, it lacks any meaningful data, and it seeks out the worst of the worst in order to prove a point. How about I come into your class and very selectively choose lessons/examples to give someone a poor impression of you? It can be done, but why?

I’ve got better things to do than waste my time on this “drivel”, however an e-mail of this article is circulating in different departments within different schools in our district, so I’ll take a moment to highlight and comment on 4 parts of the article sent to me:

1. a) Note this line in “About the Author”:  His lack of exploration of both sides of the issue does an injustice to the educational technology debate as comparison of both effective and ineffective examples of technology use in schools might help shed light on the specific stumbling blocks to making it an appropriate tool for schools.

b) Later on in the article we find this: For as anyone dealing with research in education knows, quantitative study does not apply itself well to the field, yet qualitative/anecdotal research like Oppenheimer’s leaves little room for generalizability and conclusion-drawing—a point which Oppenheimer may or may not be cognizant of.

2. From the article again:

    “To highlight one, on page 211 Oppenheimer parallels Maslow’s Life Pyramid to education. Maslow’s pyramid outlined the levels of existence: lower levels being physical needs and relationship, the higher ones being more superficial, such as exploring curiosities and aesthetic desires). His theory was that the upper levels could not be achieved until the base levels had been fulfilled. On Oppenheimer’s education pyramid, the lower levels represent a student’s ability to observe, listen and reflect in a stable environment, with the upper levels representing learning factual knowledge and using learning tools.

Forget about BLOOMS we have Oppenheimer measuring “factual knowledge and using learning tools” as upper levels of ‘existence’! I’d call this a load of manure, but manure at least has some redeeming qualities. Oppenheimer puts education on a scale going from ‘needs’ to superficial, aesthetic desires… and this is supposed to be some sort of educational continuum??? Where is knowledge construction? Evaluation? Synthesis? Where is there learning how to learn?

3. And I saved the best for last: He cites several psychologists who demonstrate how young children are not developmentally capable of grappling with a complex machine like a computer, and therefore should not be exposed to it until later in life.

Tell that to this kid, or to this student in Grade 7 who is writing code to help run an under-$100-wiimote-controlled-Smartbooard that he built. He has also designed a Pressure Sensitive Pen for it… Oh, and in 9 days he has had 676 visitors from around the globe! You can talk all you want about writing for an audience… but new tools actually give students an authentic audience!

Here is an alternate review of the book, or just look at the excerpt below. Some people call this research, some people call it checking source reliability, and I call it using my network. Why? Because I didn’t find this article with an alternative view, I asked my network of educators for help and Art Gelwicks, an educator I have never met, sent it to me on Twitter… within minutes of my asking. He also offers some more insight:

Art Gelwicks from my Twitter Network helps me out

Networked learning… think our students could benefit from it? Hyperlinking? Do you think what I’ve said has been enriched by the links provided? Again, do you think our students could benefit from this? My final thoughts are after the review excerpt…

____________________________________________________

The Flickering Mind:

The False Promise of Technology in the Classroom

Todd Oppenhemier. New York: Random House, 2003. 512 pages.

Review by Steven D. Krause, Eastern Michigan University

Computer and composition folks tend to be an optimistic bunch. The “techno-evangelism” common a decade ago has calmed, but I suspect that most of the target audience for Computers and Composition Online believe that, on the whole, computers and related technologies are good for teaching. We’re still “glass half full” kinds of people, and deep down inside, most computer and composition specialists, optimists that we are, believe that the real answer to the question “are computers beneficial in the classroom?” is “yes.”

Todd Oppenheimer is not an optimist. His glass, if he has one at all, is completely empty.

False Promises

…The Flickering Mind is clearly relevant to computers and writing specialists working in college classrooms because of its relentless focus on the ways in which computers in the classroom have failed our students.

…Those of us who know better will spot these omissions, but the majority of Oppenheimer’s audience won’t, and these readers will be left with an overwhelmingly one-sided, negative, and ultimately unfair perspective on the role of technology in schools.


In his first chapter, “Education’s History of Technotopia,” Oppenheimer reminds us of a series of failed attempted uses of technology to solve the problems of teaching. Besides discussing the early history of the personal computer, the early role of the computer industry in getting computers in the classroom, and the reoccurring nature of the “digital divide,” Oppenheimer also describes technological failures such as early film, radio, and even the telephone. In each case, Oppenheimer reminds us of the all-too common cycle of technological solutions in the classroom: initial enthusiasm, followed by unmet expectations, followed by doubt, and concluded with a dismissal of the technology.

…After five years of research and travel to schools all over the country, Oppenheimer has few good things to say about computers in the classroom. And after reading what’s wrong for 200 or so pages, I began to doubt Oppenheimer’s impressions because they seem so completely different from my own experiences with computers in classrooms. Granted, I was aware first or second hand of all of the problems that Oppenheimer reports; but in these same settings, I was also aware of at least some successes as well. For me, the effect of Oppenheimer’s polemic approach and his failure to acknowledge the fact that it is possible to teach well with computers casts some doubt on his perspective and credibility.

Conclusions

Ultimately, Oppenheimer’s book tells us something most who study the use of technology in classrooms already know. He concludes that computers are here to stay and that “The challenge for schools, therefore, is to be smarter about how and when they use technology, and how they separate its wheat from its chaff” (393). Oppenheimer does an admirable job showing us what’s wrong with the way schools use computers in teaching, and it is a useful book for curbing the enthusiasm for well-intentioned, albeit misguided, uses of computers in elementary and secondary schools. But that’s the easy part. The hard part is finding those smarter uses of computers. For that, perhaps Oppenheimer should observe and interview the optimists among us.

____________________________________________________

So there is my rant! 

The truth is, it is not easy to use technology well in the classroom. It takes good teaching, good classroom management, and good use of the appropriate tools for the appropriate learning outcomes. However, when it is used well, in order to teach new things in new ways, technology use offers opportunities that a pencil and a piece of paper don’t.

I wonder if the same people who sent the first e-mail around are open to this view and willing to pass it on as well? 

One comment on “The Flickering (Never)Mind

Comments are closed.