Denying the Digital Default

I thought it would be profitable to continue the discussion about cell phones sparked at the start of today’s class. I’ve read a mix of opinions throughout the session about the benefits and drawbacks of general technology implementation, and overall I find the pro-technology argument overwhelmingly compelling.

Incorporating cell phones in the classroom is one idea, however, that lacks real substance. This topic has come up frequently in “shop talk” with fellow teachers and even in casual conversation with friends and family. Wanting to be well-informed about the topic so that I could contribute to these discussions, I’ve read a number of opinion pieces and articles on the topic in recent years. You can trust that my skepticism isn’t an uninformed gut reaction. I think I need to make this point clear before I get too far into the post, as I may otherwise come off as a bit of a curmudgeon.

I reviewed the article mentioned during class (“Five Reasons to Allow Students to Use Cell Phones in Class” by Michael Soskil), and I found the author’s ideas poorly substantiated at best. A close reading reveals that his argument, like almost all the arguments on the issue I’ve encountered so far, is not grounded in the educational worth of cell phones. Rather, he justifies his advocation by pointing to ways that cell phones can be used to address problems with funding and information access. These are issues that no doubt need to be addressed, but are cell phones really the answer? Schools need to be adequately financed and equipped. Internet content filters need to be utilized in sensible ways that don’t hinder research and squelch student curiosity. The problem is not that cell phones aren’t allowed in the classroom. The problem is that schools are not receiving enough funds to develop technological infrastructures that allow for productive computing capacity.

Let’s consider another major facet of Soskil’s argument: “If we are preparing our students for life after school, we should allow them to use the tools they will be using when they get there.” I find this argument a bit troubling as it smacks of utilitarianism and, in a sense, anti-intellectualism. There is no doubt that teachers should consider the practical application of content when developing curriculum; however, this consideration should not dominate the conversation. Shouldn't our main objectives as educators should be to hone critical thinking skills and to foster authentic creative expression? If we accomplish this, students will naturally apply the knowledge and abilities they gained in school in everyday situations. Do these everyday situations really need to be mimicked in the classroom? When we think about incorporating technology in the classroom, our first consideration should be whether technology helps us accomplish our primary educational objectives, which should be loftier than basic utilitarian goals. Soskil states that banning cell phones is “negligent” as it fails to recognize real-world needs. I adamantly disagree. I think it’s negligent to perpetuate the notion that ideas have no value unless you can find some immediate pragmatic application for them. That mentality does not produce great ideas.

Let’s also consider, as Hobbs stresses, what Soskil omits from his argument. He doesn’t seriously address the countless behavioral problems that would accompany a lift on the cell phone ban. He also doesn’t address the issue of distraction. How can teachers expect to maintain the focus of a classroom--especially considering rapidly rising class sizes--if students are permitted to use their cell phones whenever they please? To be fair, this distraction is present, to a degree, regardless of a cell phone ban; however, imagine what it would be like without a ban in place. To counter, Soskil might make the argument that cell phones can be allowed at teacher discretion. It is obvious, though, that the logistical complications of that type of policy will inevitably give way to a general allowance of cell phone use throughout a school. And the drawbacks of that type of policy are obvious as well.

The one point on which I agree somewhat with Soskil is his counterargument to the complaints about students using cell phones to cheat on tests. It is true that worthwhile assessments eliminate this problem. Nonetheless, this is not a valid argument for cell phones. It's an argument about the low quality of the exams commonly used in American schools. 

In some ways, it seems that the pressure to develop “classrooms of the future” has gone to our heads, compelling us to chase trends that are not always in the best interests of our students. We need to make sure we’re not jumping on the technology bandwagon, using technology for technology's sake. We need to deny the digital default.

If you can point me to some sources that make a legitimate educational case for lifting the ban on cell phones in schools, let me know. In the meantime, here are two articles I’ve read recently that provide some cogent rebuttals to Soskil’s argument.

PBS MediaShift Article

NYTimes Article

Since my post has maintained a somewhat contrarian tone, I thought it would be fitting to leave you with a relevant quote from one of my favorite contrarians:

"Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. They are but improved means to an unimproved end, an end which it was already but too easy to arrive at."

--  Henry David Thoreau, Walden