In our research we have been impressed and sometimes amazed by how the digital media enable a new view of education and, more broadly, learning. Yet we also heard every conceivable argument against using the digital media to transform the model of learning. Many of these arguments start off with a true statement and then draw a conclusion which is unwarranted.
Truism 1: "The problems with the school system go far beyond the schools." True enough. By the time kids get to the schools, many have already been significantly damaged. The most critical period of brain development is the first three years of life. Because of the breakdown of the traditional family, many children are lacking good parental attention during this formative period. The number of single-parent families has grown from 10 percent in 1965 to 28 percent in 1996. Most children come from families where there is no stay-at-home parent. The percentage of families with both parents working has risen from 37 percent in 1975 to 62 percent in 1996. In most families, both parents must work to get by. This is a big change. Combine this with working single parents and we've got a whopping 64 percent of families where all parents are working. Overall, parents spend 40 percent less time with children than they did at the peak of boom families, and many of these hours are spent watching TV, where opportunities for meaningful interaction are reduced.
When children come to school hungry or from dysfunctional family situations, lacking motivation and seeing no hope to better their lot in life, then the schools will be troubled places. It is true that to really fix the schools we must fix much of what ails us as a society.
False conclusion: "We should not take dramatic steps to transform the schools." Of course the problem of the schools cannot be addressed in isolation, but this is not to say that we shouldn't take steps now to rethink the education system³both what is done at schools and how it is done. There are numerous examples of teachers, administrators, and parents who work together to create a school of the future. In so doing they change the context. A good example is the River Oaks School in Oakville, Ontario, which I described in The Digital Economy. Most students have a desktop computer, used for interactive, self-paced learning. The curriculum has been changed significantly, as has the role of the teacher - all for the better according to everyone involved, including parents. The result was improved student learning and higher student motivation. The River Oaks project didn't solve the problems of the community, but it has helped change the community by improving community involvement in the welfare of children. It not only changed the children, but the attitudes of parents and local businesses, for the better.
The old saw "everything is connected to everything else" cuts both ways. Schools are a product of economic, social, and values structures. But, conversely, change a school and you change the world.
Truism 2: "We need to understand the purpose of the schools - the ends of education, not just the means." The most articulate spokesman of this view is social critic and technology skeptic Neil Postman. "Should we privatize our schools? Should we have national standards of assessment? How should we use computers? How shall we teach reading? And so on. . . . These questions evade the issue of what the schools are for. It is as if we are a nation of technicians, consumed by our expertise of how something should be done, afraid and incapable of thinking about why."
Postman argues that the schools should serve several purposes: to help students understand that we are all stewards of the Earth, relying on each other and protecting our small planet; to cure the itch for absolute knowledge and certainty; to encourage critical thinking and the ability to disagree and argue; to encourage diversity while understanding that this does not negate standards; and to develop and use language, which is the basis of making us human, and which enables us to transform the world and in doing so to transform ourselves ("when we form a sentence we are creating a world").
False conclusion: "We should table any discussion of means until we have agreement on the ends." Let us accept Postman's aspirations for education. While Postman's discussion of the ends of education may be laudable, he misses an important point: the means have become the ends. The broadcast approach to learning (which Postman does not appear to support) is becoming antithetical to the ends he espouses. The schools are not producing the language-rich critics, arguers, collaborators, and stewards he seeks - in part because the broadcast model of learning is an obstacle to such development.
Conversely, in adopting the new interactive model of learning, N-Geners are already assimilating the learning goals Postman espouses. They aren't just discussing such goals - they're achieving them. They rely on each other for learning. They debate everything online. They are critics. They are tolerant of diversity in their collaborations. And they communicate by forming sentences³they are creating their worlds. Through a new communications medium, N-Geners are already becoming what Postman aspires for them. McLuhan's words are ringing true through the N-Generation: Their medium has become the message. It's not a case of ends before means. The means are beginning to create new learning results. Postman's hostility toward technology is misdirected as he tilts at the windmills of the broadcast media.
What about the critics who say that e-mail and chatting are not improving communication skills because the spelling, punctuation and style are not proper? My observations tell me the critics are wrong. Time spent using these services is time spent reading. Time spent thinking about your response is time spent analyzing. And time spent composing a response is time spent writing. Such intense communications activity can be either very immediate with tight time pressures, such as on a chat line, or reflective, such as on a bulletin board or e-mail. Writing is like a muscle; it requires exercise. These kids are developing a powerful muscle that will serve them well in future work environments.
Says Allison Ellis of FreeZone, "The more chances that kids have to read and write, the better." In fact, on FreeZone, if sentence structure, grammar, or spelling inhibits the child's ability to communicate effectively, the FreeZone moderator will correct them by saying, "Hey, I didn't understand your point because you didn't complete your sentence." Moreover, language is something which evolves. The N-Generation is using the characters of the ASCII alphanumeric keyboard to add rich nonverbal elements to written communications. Their creativity in doing so seems infinite.
Truism 3: "The solution to the problem of education is not technology." It seems that in every discussion I've had recently about United States government's efforts to get computers into the schools, someone will say that computers aren't the answer. "It won't help to just throw computers at the wall, hoping something will stick." "I've seen lots of computers sitting unused in classrooms. I've even seen them sitting for months in their packing boxes." "Isn't technology a solution in search of a problem?" Or, as David Shenk, author of the book Data Smog, says, "Let's be very skeptical when people like the President and Vice President say [computers a