BY EDISON MARTE SICAD
AT FIRST, it was easy to defend and support the NO GADGETS in school as a policy of helping students focus more—and presumably lessen the distraction—in their studies. Understandably, the bringing of mobile phones then was not yet a necessity; landlines were still being used; and accessing the internet was cumbersome.
But technology became more intrusive and comprehensive: people can no longer take for granted the use of mobile phones for their day-to-day activities; and a person who chooses not to use such a gadget will surely have difficulties in catching up with practically everyone (not to mention being ridiculed as “primitive”).
Calling someone then was just a matter of using any communication device (the phone booth era). And the media were still predominantly printed or aired in various newspapers and radio/TV format, respectively.
Then an innovation happened: seamless integration: mobile phones became affordable, fashionable, and highly intuitive; all of a sudden, such gadgets became undeniably practicable and essential.
From being a tool to communicate messages, gadgets became the medium in defining one’s personality. From conveying messages through words, we now interact by sending videos, images, and emoticons.
Then more apps were made available. In a subtle manner—insidious in some sense—the digital natives have acquired a learning style—mostly acquired due to online classes during the pandemic—that the teachers were not familiar or had a hard time relating with.
From a want, it became a need. Eventually, students needed it more; and society reconsidered its view of gadgets: it is no longer a threat to learning; it serves as a security for living.
And so, the NO GADGETS policy became questionable. For even teachers bring and use cellphones; and parents also allowed their children to bring one or two gadgets in school.
And the chaos of the “case-by-case basis” in reprimanding and punishing students for violating the NO GADGETS policy became a headache to the teachers. Some teachers support its use in the classrooms. Other teachers oppose it.
Solutionism :: The idea that human problems have purely technological remedies, a pursuit of efficiency that ignores social, political, and ethical consequences, and unjustifiably equates innovation with improvement. –Evgeny Morozov
As one parent lamented: “The mobile phones made my children ‘immobiles’:. They always look tired and fidget when they are not with their phones. And when they get hold of their phones, they can stay in one area for hours on end without talking to anyone. Their whole attention captured by the screen.”
SCENARIO:
A teacher reprimanded a student for using his laptop in taking down (typing) notes and using his cellphone in taking a picture of what was written on the board.
The teacher said it is part of discipline to copy by hand. The student replied that he is more comfortable using gadgets in compiling his notes.
Who is more correct? The teacher’s pedagogy or the student’s learning preference?:
There is truth to the statement that students became dependent with some learning apps e.g., Grammarly, Quillbot, and ChatGPT. They became lazy or easily get tired doing all the thinking on their own. With the aid of such apps, completing a task became easier. Is this reasonable?
I do not want to immediately jump into a conclusion with this issue. But there is one word I often attach to the use of gadgets: Responsibility :.
IN CONCLUSION, although we somehow admit that there is harm in using gadgets in school, there can actually be more harm at home :. At least in schools there is a semblance of regulation. The concern is at home; where parents can be lenient and have no time to monitor their children.
Obviously, we cannot embrace a Luddite’s point of view. Technology will run its course whether we go with it or not. The only question is, at what cost? Innovation may provide convenience at the cost of personal health and state control; but with this issue, political economy is the Gordian knot with no Alexander willing to cut it. But if there is one sphere of influence within our control, where the use will not turn into an abuse, and human interactions are still maintained by humans, that place would be at home: the first school.
To learn more about this issue, I highly recommend this book: Growing Up Wired: Raising Kids in the Digital Age: by Queena N. Lee-Chua, Michelle S. Alignay, and Nerisa C. Fernandez/PN
