Think back only a short while ago to how the transformation of schooling occurred rapidly in response to Covid-19. Materials were sent home and school was provided digitally through internet video services such as Zoom, Skype and Teams. Technology, and particularly screen-based learning, became ubiquitous. While we have since seen a return to on-site schooling, did Covid-19 bring an end to schools without screens?

Technology – and here I mean specifically screen-based devices – has transformed all aspects of our lives. Now, there are upsides to this technological transformation such as instant access to our fitness data or knowledge of the whereabouts of our children. But even these positives come with the burden of responsibility which is never easy to bear and easily leads to fixation on oneself or surveillance of our loved ones.

In schools, the implementation of screen-based devices seems to be what people mean when they speak of needing more money for schools. The devices come with certain upsides such as student management systems, testing portals, real-time feedback, etc. Yet many of these upsides come at a human cost. In his book Public Education in the Digital Age, Morgan Anderson asserts, “Technologically mediated interactions risk undermining authentic dialogue through its dehumanizing effects.” His framework for education is to view power as fundamentally exploitative, and he sees how tech companies have inundated classrooms with their devices, which thereby mediate human interactions. He is not necessarily calling for a return to traditional classrooms in a way that coheres with our educational renewal movement. Yet his point that technological incursions into our classrooms comes at a human cost is one we ought to pay attention to.

The discussion-based learning that is part and parcel of the great books tradition simply cannot be as effectively implemented through devices as through in-person interactions. That is not to say that one cannot receive a fine education through remote learning and that one cannot engage in quality discussions with the tiny headshots on a screen. I know of several programs that aim at high-quality remote learning experiences. It’s just that there are no replacements for the physical proximity of others in the learning environment. My conjecture is that low-tech schooling neither ought to be considered inferior to the tech-based classrooms of today nor ought to be thought of merely as reactions to the tech-driven models of modern education.

Wading into the Shallows

In the midst of the initial rise of the iPhone to the ubiquitous everyday carry device, Nicholas Carr’s 2010 publication of The Shallows called readers to carefully consider the perils of internet technology. It is worth interacting a bit with exactly what he means by “shallow” when it comes to cognitive function. In his chapter “The Juggler’s Brain” he lays out the cognitive benefits attained through sustained use of devices and the internet. The main benefits center around low-level cognitive functions. Carr writes:

“Research shows that certain cognitive skills are strengthened, sometimes substantially, by our use of computers and the Net. These tend to involve lower-level, or more primitive, mental functions such as hand-eye coordination, reflex response, and the processing of visual cues.”

Nicholas Carr, The Shallows, 139

There is a particular way the brain develops when it interacts with the high-powered devices we have on our desks and in our pockets. Particular neurons fire together weaving immense skill into regions of the brain associated with sight (visual cortex) and movement (cerebellum). We could add to Carr’s list video games and streaming services. Most of these screen-based technologies will activate certain areas of the brain while leaving others dormant. We will come back to this idea later to develop strategies to make the most of screen-based technologies to optimize high-level cognitive functions for learning.

Carr explores several other advantages that come with the relatively recent technologies that have entered our homes and schools. One of the uses that is often championed for having ready access to devices for learning is the ability to search and browse the internet to access relevant information. Carr notes how web searches “strengthen brain functions related to certain kinds of fast-paced problem solving, particularly those involving the recognition of patterns in a welter of data” (139). He goes so far as to say that users become “adept at quickly distinguishing among competing informational cues, analyzing their salient characteristics, and judging whether they’ll have practical benefit,” however, trends from social media argue otherwise. It seems to have become the case that users are more and more at the mercy of algorithms that filter information which rather stunts good judgment and discernment. But even granting Carr’s point, we should note how users become good at filtering information, which may feel like a higher-order thinking skill. But in actuality, simply finding data amounts to very little if one cannot then make something of it. We’ll see in a moment what Carr has to say about that.

One additional positive benefit that comes with the use of devices is what Carr explaines as “a small expansion in the capacity of our working memory.” Carr goes on to cite Small and Vorgan’s book iBrain who actually call our ability to hold in our minds massive amounts of informational tidbits “digital ADD.” They write, “many of us are developing neural circuitry that is customized for rapid and incisive spurts of directed attention” (Small and Vorgan 21). It is important to add the distinction that a greater capacity of working memory is not the same thing as cultivating a greater capacity in long-term memory. Much that gets stored in working memory gets flushed rather quickly. If you were to look back at your search history from even a week ago, you might be surprised at what you have since forgotten.

So much for the benefits of devices for our cognition. But what about the detriments? Carr questions whether technology is actually making us more intelligent. He argues that internet access “may make our brains more nimble when it comes to multitasking, but improving our ability to multitask actually hampers our ability to think deeply and creatively” (Carr 140). To put it another way, you can either develop single tasking or multitasking, and one comes at the cost of the other. It really behooves us, therefore, to consider which is the more valuable of the two. Many studies have shown how multitasking or task switching have many detrimental effects on executive function, emotional wellbeing and skills development. Whereas single tasking has more positive gains especially when learners are focused on meaningful work and develop transferrable skills. Carr gets at this same point when he quotes David Meyer, “You can train until you’re blue in the face and you’d never be as good as if you just focused on one thing at a time.”

Carr next interacts with the work of Patricia Greenfield from her 2009 article published in the apex journal Science. While internet-based devices have enhanced our visual-spatial cognitive capacity, there has been “a weakening of our capacities for the kind of ‘deep processing’ that underpins ‘mindful acquisition, inductive analysis, critical thinking, imagination, and reflection.’” (141 quoting Patricia M. Greenfield, “Technology and Informal Education, Science, 323 (January 2, 2009): 69-71.) The word Carr uses is “weakening.” It is not as though when we enhance the visual and motor cortices that the neocortex comes along for the ride. Instead, attention, perception and long-term memory actually suffer. Think of it this way. The brain is a high-efficiency machine. If the brain perceives that it needs to shift to visual-spatial engagement with the highly stimulating world of the internet, then it will redirect its energies to visual and motor skills. Instead, if it perceives that more work ought to be put into singular attention, deep thought, perception, then it will direct its energies there instead.

What all of this amounts to is that the brain when exposed to devices, particularly for longs periods of time, begins to take on the characteristics of the devices. You have rapid switching between tasks, the ability to churn lots of data, and attention gets shifted amongst multiple stimuli. What gets lost is deep insight into the kind of thought that creates meaning. Carr concludes:

“The mental functions that are losing the “survival of the busiest” brain cell battle are those that support calm, linear thought—the ones we use in traversing a lengthy narrative or an involved argument, the ones we draw on when we reflect on our experiences or contemplate an outward or inward phenomenon. The winners are those functions that help us speedily locate, categorize, and assess disparate bits of information in a variety of forms, that let us maintain our mental bearings while being bombarded by stimuli. These functions are, not coincidentally, very similar to the ones performed by computers, which are programmed for the high-speed transfer of data in and out of memory. Once again, we seem to be taking on the characteristics of a popular new intellectual technology.”

Nicholas Carr, The Shallows, 142

Diving into the Deep

Carr’s book, well over a decade old, still rings true today. The digital natives of today have been inundated with even more devices now with smartphones in the hands of veritably every student. Parents and teachers alike feel powerless to stem the tide as it feels like children ought to have these technologies in order to succeed in a new technological age, not to mention the ways in which such technologies keep the safe. The perception of success and safety come at the cost of an increasing shallowness as explored in the previous section. So what perspective can help us navigate a setting in which new, more powerful smartphones are released annually?

Here is where we take a step into the deep end. Cal Newport came out with two books that masterfully cut across the bow of the technological ship driving recklessly into the shallows. He released Deep Work in 2016 and then Digital Minimalism in 2019. It is worth exploring these two to get a sense of the emerging hope we have as an educational movement whereby we can with confidence commit ourselves to low-tech schooling.

The thesis of Deep Work is stated succinctly in the introduction. Newport looks at two economic factors, one having to do with the scarcity of deep work and then correspondingly the increasing value placed on deep work. He writes:

“The ability to perform deep work is becoming increasingly rare at exactly the same time it is becoming increasingly valuable in our economy. As a consequence, the few who cultivate this skill, and then make it the core of their working life, will thrive.”

Cal Newport, Deep Work, 14

This is a central tenet of the new economy. Many think that the new economy is all about new technologies usurping the old system of manufacture-based industry. To some extent that is true. But the new economy is all about creativity and the creation of meaning out of the inundation of overwhelming attention-grabbing stimuli. On the face of it, the new economy can degenerate into mass consumptionism, with individuals binging Netflix shows, scrolling social media feeds, and following the latest YouTube personality. However, the new economy is also a place where deep work is rewarded because for those who can focus their attention and energies, they can create work that is meaningful.

It is instructive to consider Newport’s definition of shallow work as “noncognitively demanding, logistical-style tasks, often performed while distracted. These efforts tend not to create much new value in the world and are easy to replicate” (Deep Work 228). The examples Newport uses to explore shallow work are connected to the work place, especially the academic field. Yet, his definition of shallow work provides us a good guide as to the work we ought to engage in and assign in schools. If our schools are to graduate into the new economy with the rare and valuable ability to perform deep work, we need to avoid shallow work. I highly recommend reading Jason’s article on “Deep Reading” to explore further what it means to engage in the kind of deep work Newport is describing.

Now I would argue that there is a role for screen-based technology in schools. While I champion low-tech schooling, it would be irresponsible to send graduates off into the world unable to connect their deep work to the technological context that surrounds us. Here is where Cal Newport’s other book Digital Minimalism comes to bear. He defines digital minimalism as “a philosophy of technology use in which you focus your online time on a small number of carefully selected and optimized activities that strongly support things you value, and then happily miss out on everything else.” (Digital Minimalism 28) The approach hinted at here embraces the use of technology, but clearly defines the parameters of its use. Our screen-based devices can be great tools, but terrible masters. And giving them unlimited time and attention places us at their service.

So, how do we set the parameters? Here I would like to outline a few principles and practices that can help you provide excellent technological training in a low-tech schooling environment.

First, clearly define the tools to be used. Consider what a student actually needs to be able to use to succeed as a student, particularly in college and career. This really boils down to only a few applications. They need to learn how to manage an email inbox and to write professional email correspondence. They need to learn how to format a paper in a word processor. Those two are the major ones, and if that is all your school trained students in, they would be well served. On top of this, you could choose to teach them effective use of presentation sofware such as PowerPoint. They could learn how to manage data in a spreadsheet. You could even go above and beyond by teaching them how to code. I could envision a rhetoric program incorporating some aspect of video-conferencing etiquette or cultivating the skills of video recording and editing. Notice, though, that the choices available are a rather short list. One needs only readily available programs on a laptop to access most of what one needs to train students in the academic use of technology.

Second, clearly articulate the goals for technology use. One could list what students will not do, such as check social media, watch videos, listen to music or play games. More importantly, establishing learning outcomes lets everyone know what we’re working toward. Our students will learn how to format papers according to the three major style guides typically used in higher education programs. Our students will learn how to manage a school-based email account with training in professional etiquette that receives regular review and grades each quarter. Our students will develop professional-looking PowerPoint slides according to sound design principles for their senior thesis presentations. With goals such as these, teachers and students gain clarity on why they are bringing their laptops and what they are using them for. The teacher knows well that the laptop has no need to be out during the classroom discussion of Pride and Prejudice, but that it will be taken out when the paper is written analyzing a character from the novel.

Third, repeatedly provide feedback to students on their use of technology. Teachers should tell students when they are mindlessly taking out a laptop. They should be able to note how demanding the tasks are that they are performing. Remember, we are guiding them toward the rare and valuable deep work and steering them away from the shallows. So, if a student has been given ample time to complete a paper in class, but the work is shallow, then we need to start asking them how they used their time. I might even need to sit right next to them to strengthen their capacity to engage in deep and meaningful work.

Ultimately, our educational renewal movement is well positioned to provide the new economy with capable young men and women ready to create deep and meaningful work. I recommend no screen-based technology through middle school and then very intentional incorporation of technology in high school. We want to cultivate an environment conducive to deep learning so that technology becomes the final piece of the puzzle for students well trained in reading, discussing and writing. The liability of bringing technology in too soon can result in a shallow learning environment that stunts the capacity of our students to excel in college, career and life. It is up to us to train them in the creation of meaning rather than merely being consumers.

---

New from Educational Renaissance Publishing

Buy the book!