“The lunar lander used by Neil Armstrong had just 1200 lines of code. An average smartphone app has about 1-200,000 lines of code. Why relegate that smartphone to a pocket when you can unleash that power for good, for learning?”
In this Quote a comparison between the computing power of the computer used to get the first man on the moon and a modern cell phone is drawn. The point of this comparison is to show how much is capable when humans are given even a fraction of the technological power we have access to every day. If that much power got us to the moon, where could 100 times that take us. In this article, the reality of smartphones in the classroom is raised. While some teachers rush to take them away and eliminate the potential distraction this article instead suggests to the teacher to view them as a tool for learning. The major theme of this week’s readings is around whether or not cell phones in an academic setting is inherently anti-education and if the war on them is rational. The overall-point themes of this week’s readings is the idea that smartphones are not inherently evil and can in fact be used as a means for teachers to reform and better craft lessons to keep students engaged, as well as act as a test of will power for students which is an essential skill for life in general.
“By observing how students interact with their cellphones, I can see which students are more mature and who can control their desires and not let those desires control them.”
This quote describes how this teacher in particular has found that in their experience a student’s ability to deal with the presence of a phone in terms of its potential for distraction is indicative of a student’s maturity and in turn allows them to get a better read on them. This argument raises the question to me whether or not having the knowledge of and ability to eliminate the presence of a distraction yet not doing it as a test to students is setting some up for failure. While I understand the author’s idea it still seems to me that this could be interpreted as detrimental for students and their ability to learn all for what? The potential benefit of the teacher to judge students based on their ability to not look at something that is constantly screaming their name 24 hours a day. Like I said I understand the author’s arguement but Im not sure I agree with it and to me it raises questions around their logic.
“We all know this from experience. Most of us can shut out distractions when we are pursuing something that really matters to us.”
This quote proposes the idea that humans ability to filter out distractions in the face of our goals has less to do with the absence of distractions but instead with our passion of our goals. While this idea does make sense and has rang true through my life experience so far it begs the question is introducing a potential distraction when it could be eliminated worth it. I think personally this author takes an idealistic approach to this concept. While the ability to craft education to completely enthrall its participants to the point where they become immune to distraction would be awesome, personally I don’t know if I believe its possible. Every fishing guide Ive ever fished with when asked if they love to fish has said no, The conclusion Ive reached for this is that once you are forced to do something even when one doesn’t necessarily feel like it, the joy is sucked from that activity. Once the guide saw fishing as a job in which they felt pressured they had to perform even on days they didn’t feel like it, this feeling of distaste spread to the act of fishing as a whole of them. I believe this is the case with any job, activity, or education someone can pursue. Because of this im not sure I believe education will ever reach this level of engagement for students.
