I am currently in a grad class for education and our topic this week is on the role of tech in the classroom. What do you all think? I am an English Teacher and except for their formal writing assignments I tend to keep things pretty analog as far as assignments are concerned. (I do use my board for the PowerPoint and some videos). Especially in the age of AI I want to see as much of their handwriting as possible. What is the interplay of Analog and digital for you guys? We are all Power users and I have been thinking a lot about it in my life. I’ve recently taken up bullet journaling and been using notebooks like the Rocket book that helps bridge the efficiency gap but still has analog benefits.
Side note I would chuck their Chromebooks for an iPad if I could. I wish Apple made an education model iPad that understands that students can be feral and break technology.
I certainly believe that handwriting notes and then transferring them to electronic improves retention and comprehension- there were some studies a while back that corroborated that view.
I also always found it easier to hand write notes at the same time as following a discussion/presentation- if I tried to type at the same time, I’d be likely to miss something said or shown.
I’ve read several studies asserting that handwriting fosters the ability to form connections among concepts in a lecture, or reading, which can lead to a deeper understanding of the material as well as extending the writer’s knowledge to other areas. Versus typing notes, especially in a lecture, which tend to be mainly verbatim records of what the student hears with minimal comprehension. Handwriting trumps typing.
Personally, I love to handwrite book notes, and write all over the page, draw link lines, add my own little graphical asides, flip back and forth between colors to enhance meaning. I can open a page of handwritten notes years later and quickly comprehend the flow of what I was listening to or reading. A page of typed notes is just a dead page.
Apps like Tinderbox can somewhat bridge the gap between graphical/handwritten note taking and mere typing of notes – but can afford a huge amount of distraction and friction in using a graphical app like that.
I’ve always had terrible handwriting which caused me to slow down when writing to keep things legible. I also have mild dyslexia which was diagnosed in College (UK College age 16-18, not US College), not with the ordering of letters or numbers, but an inability to think in a linear fashion. I cannot do start to finish, it just doesn’t work. Because of this I was given extra time to complete my college exams.
I spent a lot of time in school being last to finish work, getting lost in the middle of a piece of work or even becoming disenfranchised with whatever I was doing because I couldn’t put the bit I was working on down for a bit, go and do something the bit that was weighing on my mind, and then come back to finish the first bit.
That’s where Word Processors and Spreadsheets opened up massive capabilities of my life to work on whatever my brain was focusing on at that time and then come back and finish what I’d taken a tangent from without it becoming a massive exercise to re-arrange what I’d created so it was in the “right order”
I use analogue sometimes for noting tasks I need to do and quick notes, but for anything of any length I can’t do it.
In this day and age, anyone being forced to use analogue tools 1) fails to prepare them for the future of work where they’ll have access to Machine Learning and LLMs (Which aren’t AI) and 2) massively disadvantages those who are neurologically different.
I am personally ADHD and I struggle mightily with context shifting. My computer can do anything and I want to do everything all the time. But I can definitely see with dyslexia analog being a problem. The remarkable appeals to the ADHD side of my neurodivergency.
My view in the age of LLMs is that perhaps we are sacrificing our capacity to think by not teaching the process behind these “magic apps.” Much like how many kids cannot do basic arithmetic in their heads because they always have a calculator with them.
I have many thoughts on this topic, but the issue is too nuanced and complex to discuss adequately in a forum like this.
Let me just share that I firmly believe that the proper and effective use of technology is essential in today’s classrooms, including helping students wrestle through the ethical and skill-based issues surrounding AI. I do not believe educators can teach students how to deal with technology in preparation for college and their careers unless we are walking alongside them with that technology.
That said, my premise is that “technology has a critical place in education, but it must be kept in its place.”
Sometimes, students need to leverage the full power of technology to accomplish, create, and learn things not possible without it. At other times, they should sit under a tree with their teacher and engage in Socratic dialogue.
Using technology in the classroom is not, in my estimation, a zero-sum proposition. Technology can enhance or hinder the education of students. How it is implemented (and WHY), will determine its affect on learning.
I’ve implemented three comprehensive 1:1 iPad/laptop programs. For my last implementation, I wrote a white paper on a issue for our school.
When done correctly (and it usually isn’t), technology can be a net positive for student learning. When done incorrectly, it is educationally detrimental and a waste of money.
Pretty much since starting to use computers I have given up handwriting. During my last degree course the powers that be sent me to an Ed Pysch for evaluation turns out I am mildly dyslexic and have fine motor control issues. The latter causes me to write very slowly to get some sort of legibility which in turn makes me lose my train of thought often resulting in omission of important words such as NOT.
However when using a computer I touch type. This allows me to get my thoughts down faster than I can think them and in consequence rarely drop words. Also touch typing breaks the visual feedback loop of looking at the mess on the page and what I want to write; instead I look at the screen and watch the stream of characters turn into words and those into meaningful sentences that mean what I want them to.
I don’t even write shopping lists (on paper). My grocery shopping list is a spreadsheet that has developed over the years into several sheets with the most frequented shop’s having 1,200 rows. Probably the only occasions now when my writing is analogue are to sign official documents.
People in the past read similar comments I have made to the above and tell me to go to handwriting classes. It does not work. Much as I wish such classes would help as I love calligraphy. (My chosen book for the mythic desert island would be a first edition copy of Edward Johnstone’s Writing & illuminating & lettering.) Those fine motor control issues do not result in legible text.
Very insightful take and thanks for sharing. I like your position that it’s “both”, using each in its best way. I love your idea that we must teach folks to use technology so they are prepared for the real world.
I also would have loved an “under the tree” class from time to time — we begged for them in college to no avail.
I am increasingly in agreement with the Both/And approach. Some tools to substitute older analog tech (PowerPoints instead of of slide projectors) and to provide opportunities where there are none. But if we want to get most kids using their brains. Old School is still the best school unless it is directly related to computer skills, and digital tools to help kids who have neurodivergent issues like myself.
I want to be clear. No discussion on how students learn is applicable to all students in all time. There are some that digital is a welcome relief. Some its a hurt. Balancing them in the classroom is the challenge. If it works for you Go with God I am not an analog snob.
Sophisticated hardware and software is essential and compelling in our biology, chemistry, physics, anatomy, robotics, CAD and engineering, and aviation courses and academies. Spreadsheets are essential in our business academy. Our film production program, including video story-telling, makes use of high end video and photography software and hardware. And there is more.
My point is that we should not restrict technology to computer technology but use it across a broad spectrum of courses. Yet, sometimes, no tech should be used. Deep, rigorous discussions should dominate some lessons and courses with no screens in sight.
That is unfortunate. To be candid, I’m shocked at the level of illiteracy of the classics and the associated chronological snobbery that has given rise to it. I’m also shocked about how little college graduates actually know and understand about history, political theory, philosophy of ethics, and more than I can list here. In short, I find too many college graduates with certain skill sets but a shallow education.
As a computing scientist I wish we could restrict the teaching of computer technology! Spent lots time in classrooms supporting Deaf students taking (British) GCSE/A-level courses and I was utterly appalled at both what was being taught — the textbooks for those levels were riddled with basic errors — and how it was delivered. Seems to me that the old adage of “those who can’t do teach” was proven in those classes. No wonder that first year university courses spend so much time on the fundamentals; the kids have to unlearn and repair the damage done by teachers who have no computing experience.
But that’s too reductionist. I certainly understand your concern and legitimate frustration. But my point is that though students should be taught to use technology effectively, which requires that teachers be taught to use it effectively, doing a good job teaching computer technology does not require it be restricted to computer courses. Computer literacy, and the use of computer technology to teach and learn should be expanded and utilized in other courses if it makes good pedagogical sense to do so.
Agrred but sadly they are not. After supporting Deaf students on those courses I went on to support Deaf university students and their and their hearing peers use of IT was abysmal! They (and the lecturers) muddle through inefficiently and ineffectively.
I agree and equally troubling is how ineffective most teachers are in using technology for teaching. This is why we have developed an imperfect, but robust, 1:1 tech program. It involves substantial teacher training as well as best practices for students. It is imperfect, we have inconsistencies, but overall, I believe it is better than the vast majority of schools I have investigated regarding this matter. Too many schools have deployed technology for PR and marketing purposes, not pedagogical purposes.
That said, I absolutely agree with your frustrations.
Regardless of the discipline yet specific to the particular discipline, teach mastery to form coherent thoughts and communicate them clearly. The tool, whether pen + paper or typewriter or electronic word processor, is just the medium. Allow each student the ability to find their best tool, but also do not allow them to be dismissive of the other. Laboratory or field work may demand hand writing. Administrative or reporting work may demand electronic word processing. The grace that we will on most occasions have our own choice when it just for us does not mean that we will not be required to use what we are weak at.
I see students submit undergraduate and graduate science / engineering homework with wonderfully legible hand writing. I also see those who submit only type written work because they (rightfully) recognize the illegibility of their own hand writing. Regardless, I require them to submit electronic (word processed) reports to exceptionally tight specifications on layout and format (and grammar). I also require one page of hand-written proof, where hand-written is manually by hand. IOW, I require them to demonstrate not only mastery of the topic but also adequate mastery of the two opposing tools needed to communicate the topic. I see no reasons not to have a comparable, balanced approach to appropriate degrees throughout all levels of education.
As for forcing hand-writing to avoid plagiarism by electronic AI tools … One alternative approach is to force the writing / typing exercises to happen in a well-proctored environment where all doors to reach the internet of things are closed.
