Is internet technology turning our brains to mush? For those born after 1990, it is a constant fear. Most of us struggle to read a poster, let alone a book. We’ve overstimulated our prefrontal cortexes to near death through incessant multi-screening. Our brains aren’t wired to do anything except be wired.
But technology fans tell us to be positive. We should embrace the new world and its limitless possibility. In education, in particular, there is a sense of optimism. When I started secondary school at the turn of the millennium, we had just one interactive whiteboard. It immediately became the epicentre of the school. By the time I graduated from university, all students were equipped with their own laptop, and essays were uploaded electronically.
The students of the future will increasingly use virtual classrooms, whereby learning is delivered to them wherever they are. But will they learn more as a result?
Distance learning is nothing new. Harold Wilson outlined plans for a ‘University of the Air’, and the Open University was founded in the late 1960s, with students enrolling early the following decade. Development in communications technology, however, means that distance learning has been greatly enhanced in recent years.
It is easy to get excited. Educational techno-utopians claim technology will ‘democratise’ learning. The barriers of educational privilege can be torn down. Courses are free or cost very little. Everybody can have access to the best teachers. You can delve into subjects that hitherto you could never have known about. Cryptology or canine theriogenology tickle your fancy? One click and away we go.
It’s big business too. The number of virtual learning ‘solutions’ is on the rise. CloudRooms, an American virtual learning school, ‘are here to help you with the transition’ from bricks and mortar to computers. A British education provider is currently working with the Malaysian government to connect the entire country through a cloud-based learning platform — the first of its kind. Last year marked the founding year of Minerva Schools at KGI, an online undergraduate programme. These courses are extremely attractive to bright young things: Minerva admitted only 45 students from the 1,794 applications.
So what’s not to like? A lot, it turns out. Guiding students towards screens draws them away from each other. Why does the current curriculum emphasise sport? Not because every Tom, Dick and Fatima is a Pelé in the making, but because it teaches competitiveness and teamwork. Video games, on the other hand, isolate rather than encouraging co-operation. The same applies to the classroom.
Virtual learning can be useful when employed alongside classic teaching methods. Language teaching can be greatly improved by connecting international students. In the developing world, too, virtual learning on mobile phones gives disadvantaged people more educational possibilities. In 2005 the Open University launched TESSA, a programme that equips teachers in Sub-Saharan African schools with techie resources. More recently, USAID established the research initiative M4Ed4Dev (Mobile for Education For Development).
But let’s not pretend that the virtual classroom can be a substitute for the real world. ‘Every time I see some bright young nerd chanting about the future of education online, my heart sinks,’ says Sophie Cooke, a Somerset-based teacher. ‘If technology is really enabling children to learn more, why are their attention spans ever more diminished? What we need is the same as it always was — smaller classes and face-to-face interaction with pupils.’
Virtual learning misses the point of education, whereby a teacher should bring out of the student questioning, reasoning and critical enquiry. Think of the great teachers — Socrates and Jesus: they gathered people around them and spoke. You cannot do this from a cloud.