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

Having waded into the shallows, we can see that a high-tech classroom promises certain kinds of cognitive intelligence, but not the kind that sets children up for meaningful engagement with the important questions of life. Focused work on the great books and wrestling with the great ideas runs counter to the shallow attention of the multi-tasking mechanisms we are becoming in the hands of our devices.

Read more about Nicholas Carr’s work as it connects to habit training in my article “Habit Formation: You, Your Plastic Mind, and Your Internet“

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!

The post Low-tech Schooling: Avoiding the Shallows in a High-tech Society appeared first on .

Life comes at us at a furious tempo enhanced by these new technologies. Which leads me to the news. The news is no longer arriving on our doorstep in print form and in our living rooms through three broadcast channels. The news shows up as headlines on our phone’s widget, in our RSS readers, in our social media feeds, not to mention the 24/7 news cycles of multiple broadcast channels. The transformation of the news from the domain of a few professional journalism outlets to the multivarious avenues of delivery today has made a lasting impact on our society, our culture and even our individual psyches. The multiplication of news has not made us a more informed populace. Instead, the phrase “fake news” emerged revealing a deep mistrust in all stripes of news media. In this article I would like to explore a few perspectives that will hopefully enable us to train our students to withstand the onslaught of contemporary news, which I believe has exacerbated the difficult landscape of the post-iPhone era.

The Example of C. S. Lewis

It behooves us to consider the sage advice of C. S. Lewis: read old books. This advice really speaks into our educational renewal movement. It is not that the old books distract us from the present. We are not burying our heads in the sands of days gone by while the world around us burns. No, instead we are gaining valuable perspective. The books that have stood the test of time contain insights that transcend the particulars of any given timeframe. It was said that when Lewis was introduced to a newsworthy event, despite the fact that he didn’t read the news, he had incisive thoughts about current events. This was because his reading of old books informed his thinking so that he could address the pressing concerns of his day from a well-considered perspective. Now, to be fair, Lewis did from time-to-time read the news. It is inevitable that one takes a glance at items of present-day concern. But his regular practice was to ignore the news in preference to literary and philosophical writings.

I remember reading Lewis’s Surprised by Joy and later Alan Jacob’s The Narnian while working on my PhD. At the time I had numerous news sources dumping headlines into my RSS feed. It struck me that Lewis’s habit of ignoring the news might be a way for me to clear out both the time and the headspace to make significant progress on my research and writing. Even though I wouldn’t be up on the latest events when conversing with my colleagues over lunch, it was a sacrifice I was willing to make. Here is the quote that got me started on my journey of giving up on the news, from Surprised by Joy:

Even in peacetime I think those are very wrong who say that schoolboys should be encouraged to read the newspapers. Nearly all that a boy reads there in his teens will be seen before he is twenty to have been false in emphasis and interpretation, if not in fact as well, and most of it will have lost all importance. Most of what he remembers he will therefore have to unlearn; and he will probably have acquired an incurable taste for vulgarity and sensationalism and the fatal habit of fluttering from paragraph to paragraph to learn how an actress has been divorced in California, a train derailed in France, and quadruplets born in New Zealand.

C. S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy (Harcourt, 1955), 159

Some of the key words and phrases that should jump out when reading this passage are “false,” “lost all importance,” “have to unlearn,” “vulgarity,” “sensationalism,” and “habit of fluttering.” This was Lewis in 1955, a decade after World War 2. Consider how much more these words and phrases offer a critique of our social media feeds. We swipe our finger on the iPhone scrolling for that which is sensational, probably vulgar, most likely false but above all is unimportant. As we try to make sense of our world, it turns out the news is one of the worst ways to gauge the way things really are.

The impact on our neurology has far-reaching consequences that we have yet to fully realize. In The Shallows, Nicholas Carr spells out how the internet impacts both our conscious and unconscious thinking as well as rewires our neurological networks. He writes:

The Net’s cacophony of stimuli short-circuits both conscious and unconscious thought, preventing our minds from thinking either deeply or creatively. Our brains turn into simple signal-processing units, quickly shepherding information into consciousness and then back out again.

Nicholas Carr, The Shallows (New York: Norton), 119

As we attempt to interact with our environment to understand the way things really are, the internet prevents us from the kind of deep reflection that would ultimately help us make sense of the world.

News in the Ancient World

If Lewis started me on my journey toward a news-free life, it was my research into the transmission of information in the ancient world that really caught ahold of me. In a world where most people could not read or write, oral communication was the means by which people learned about current events. News as we know it today was issued in the form of public edicts. Official policy was disseminated by written decrees conveyed to public areas such as city marketplaces to be read by town criers. Parchments might be publicly displayed for those who were not present to hear the announced edict. Important and permanent statutes might be displayed as placards or pillars that served public notice of rules and regulations. (see Alan Millard, Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus, 166-168) The written word was essentially reserved for legal proceedings and official business. Note how edicts were read aloud publicly, since most people were unable to read.

In an oral culture, that which was truly newsworthy spread by word of mouth. At its worst, oral culture perpetuates gossip and misinformation. Yet, the expectation was that rules and regulations announced in the public square would utilize the rapid transmission word-of-mouth communication provided. A Roman authority could dispatch a minimal number of emissaries to strategic locations and know that the message would reach a majority of the populace. The edict read in the marketplace was soon spoken of along the highways and byways of a far-flung empire. Consider the example of the decree that went out from Caesar Augustus in Luke 2:1. Joseph of Nazareth didn’t read about this in a newspaper, it was likely disseminated first from a written edict read aloud in a major city and then spread via word-of-mouth, with the effect that most of the population abided by the regulation to be registered.

Now the point of all of this is that for the majority of history, most of the news that individuals received was learned through relationships, either business (i.e. trips to the marketplace), kinship, or community. The reception of newsworthy information through relationship means you could assess the relative reliability of your sources. If your uncle is a trustworthy, upright citizen, then when he tells you about something, you are inclined to believe it. The other fascinating insight provided by the concept that newsworthy items were received through close relationships is that the “news” was likely to be highly relevant to your daily life. Much of the click-bait types of news about citizens of Rome that would have scintillated the ears of remote Galileans would have been so irrelevant to daily life that it never would have been communicated. So in general the oral-dominant culture of the ancient world actually provided two major filters for newsworthiness: 1) source reliability, and 2) relevance to daily life.

Neil Postman 2.0

In 1985 when Neil Postman published Amusing Ourselves to Death, the cultural artifact that most dominated public discourse was the television. Breaking down that word – tele-vision – provides two developments that can be traced over time. The first part “tele” can be traced back to the telegraph, which was the first technology that Postman shows transformed our culture from a typographical culture to an illuminated screen culture. He writes:

“The telegraph introduced a kind of public conversation whose form had startling characteristics: Its language was the language of headlines – sensational, fragmented, impersonal. News took the form of slogans, to be noted with excitement, to be forgotten with dispatch. Its language was also entirely discontinuous. One message had no connection to that which preceded or followed it. Each ‘headline’ stood alone as its own context. The receiver of the news had to provide a meaning if he could. The sender was under no obligation to do so.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death (Penguin), 70

Notice the shift from reliability and relevance to irresponsible and irrelevant. No longer did news have to provide the context necessary to make meaning of life or to enable the reader to take action.

“But the situation created by telegraphy, and then exacerbated by later technologies, made the relationship between information and action both abstract and remote.”

Amusing Ourselves to Death, 68

The prefix “tele” means far away. So, “television” means literally “far away vision.” News conducted to us from remote locations requires significant mental work in order to make sense of the context, background and meaning of the information. And yet, the nature of news items is to disseminate information so rapidly, that meaning making cannot happen. This leads to our inability to act on the information we receive through “far away vision.” If something happen in remote Hungary, there’s very little I can do about it. I just have to receive it at an abstract factoid.

“This ensemble of electronic techniques called into being a new world – a peek-a-boo world, where now this event, now that, pops into view for a moment, then vanishes again. It is a world without much coherence or sense; a world that does not ask us, indeed does not permit us to do anything; a world that is, like the child’s game of peek-a-boo, entirely self-contained. But like peek-a-boo, it is also endlessly entertaining.”

Amusing Ourselves to Death, 77

I am reminded of the famous scene in the 2000 film Gladiator where Russell Crowe’s character, Maximus, cries out in the coliseum, “Are you not entertained?” This is perhaps the new, highest value in society. Our pursuit is no longer for happiness, but for entertaining. Have we accepted a cheap substitute for eudaimonia?

“Television, in other words, is transforming our culture into one vast arena for show business. It is entirely possible, of course, that in the end we shall find that delightful, and decide we like it just fine. That is exactly what Aldous Huxley feared was coming, fifty years ago.”

Amusing Ourselves to Death, 80

That was 1985. We are now approaching forty years since Postman wrote this, and therefore almost a century since Huxley wrote Brave New World. Imagine what Postman would have to say about the internet, social media and the smartphone. If a thirty-minute nightly news program on, say, NBC is sensational, fragmented, and impersonal, how much more has our social media feed contributed to this Huxleyan dystopia? The technologies have changed (although they are still “tele-vision”), but Postman’s insight remains just as true today. The internet is really just tele-vision 2.0, so we need all the more Neil Postman 2.0.

Reading Old Books

So how do we lead a resistance to this Huxleyan dystopia? To answer this I return to C. S. Lewis and his advice to read old books. This sage advice comes from an introduction her wrote for an edition of On the Incarnation by Athanasius.

“Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period.”

With renewed purpose this year, I believe our educational renewal movement has the tools to equip our students with wisdom and knowledge to cut through the click bait headlines of our social media feeds. If nothing else, classical Christian education is about old books. What we mean by old books is the classics, the great books. These have been tried and tested. People come back to them generation after generation finding in them a rich vein of insight, meaning and perspective. Consider this definition of a classic book by Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve:

“A true classic, as I should like to hear it defined, is an author who has enriched the human mind, increased its treasure, and caused it to advance a step; who has discovered some moral and not equivocal truth, or revealed some eternal passion in that heart where all seemed known and discovered; who has expressed his thought, observation, or invention, in no matter what form, only provided it be broad and great, refined and sensible, sane and beautiful in itself; who has spoken to all in his own peculiar style, a style which is found to be also that of the whole world, a style new without neologism, new and old, easily contemporary with all time.”

Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve, “What is a Classic?” Harvard Classics, Vol. 32: Literary and Philosophical Essays

Compare this definition to what we find in the news. As classical educators, we have the opportunity to provide the antidote to a sensational, fragmented and impersonal media. What is the great book you will be sharing with your students? What treasure will enrich their minds and yours? When you open that cherished volume, enable them to see the truth, beauty and goodness therein. For from it they will gain so much perspective as to make the news pale in comparison.

One final word. When I previously taught senior history covering the modern world, I had my students read Amusing Ourselves to Death. I found that it provided a sound critique of culture from the World Wars to the present. If you haven’t adopted this work in your high school, it is well worth a look. The first time I worked through it with students, the Hunger Games movies were still fairly recent. They easily made the connections between the dystopian world Suzanne Collins created and the arguments Postman puts forward. At the conclusion of our reading of Amusing Ourselves to Death, I challenged my students to undertake a screen fast. Most of my students had jobs and drove themselves everywhere, so they had to plan ahead to be without phone, tablet, laptop or TV. For instance, I had one student who provided her mom’s number in case of emergencies. The challenge was to go 72 hours without any screen time. Upon completion of the challenge, the student then wrote a reflection on their experience. Some consistent patterns emerged. These students spent more time with family, spent more time outdoors, engaged in more leisure activities, got more sleep, exercised more, and overall felt a greater sense of wellbeing as a result of their screen fast. I even had one student who mentioned she noticed how much the birds sing. If you work with high school or college students, I highly recommend both Postman’s book as well as the screen fast challenge. They can really open the eyes of your students and empower them to enact real change in their lives.

The post Old Books, the Antidote to Our News Feeds appeared first on .