The Flickering Mind: The False Promise of Technology in the Classroom and How Learning Can Be Saved [Hardcover]

Bruce and Walden discussed "The Flickering Mind":

BRUCE:
Really, how could even a large anthroposophical Waldorf institution openly discuss with parents the evil reality of Ahriman? Ahriman is one of those "they won't understand" concepts. So it gets hidden. Parents observe that anthroposophical teachers in the school act a bit odd whenever anything electronic is mentioned. Parents hear "TV bad" and most of them undoubtedly feel it simply has to do with children lazily sitting around, eyestrain, and the TV programming itself.

WALDEN:
"A bit odd"... good one! The answer is to stop being a "bit odd" and tell the truth - even if the truth might seem more odd than hiding it. Most parents are happy to sit and chat about eyestrain and TV programming and computer/video games, etc. *That* is one reason we sent our kids to Waldorf. What we did not know was the relationship between Ahriman and Lucifer according to Steiner and how that relationship formed the basis of the impulse (for lack of a better term) of the "whys" behind Waldorf and electronic stuff. That's where Todd Oppenheimer misses the boat, as well, in his latest book, The Flickering Mind. I do not completely disagree with Oppenheimer's argument about childhood and television/video games. I completely disagree, however, with his black and white view of Waldorf vis a vis TV, etc.

Oppenheimer has this weird, incestuous relationship with Waldorf where neither of them really understands where the other is coming from. But they are pleased as punch to use each other to promote their cause/movement. And it pays. Meanwhile, well intentioned parents continue to read and believe both parties... as they gladly send their children off to the "nonsectarian school" only to scratch their heads at some point down the line and scream to the heavens as they leave ... "Who the hell is Ahriman??!!"

It would be simple to explain all this to parents BEFORE they enroll their children in a Waldorf school. Parents deserve as much and so do our children.

This motivational myth has not only cost billions but it has obscured the real value of computers for education (at least in elementary grades). Computers excel at quantitative work. People excel at qualitative work. Motivating a student to learn is not a quantitative task, instead it is one of the most challenging of qualitative tasks. Computers cannot motivate students except in the novelty stage (as can any new activity). Motivating the individual student must be left to the humans in closest proximity and thus the responsibility largely falls to the teacher.

Leaders looking for the next quick fix for education's woes should not throw the computers out and swing the pendulum back 50 years. Unfortunately there is little in The Flickering Mind which argues against such a backlash. Oppenheimer's conclusions that we should give teachers more responsibility, pay them more and step back from standardized testing as the primary measure of learning effectiveness are easy to agree with. I disagree, however, that the computer is just another teaching tool in the same category as the overhead projector.

While it is not the motivator that many have believed in, the computer has more potential than a fixed-function machine because of its adaptability and interconnectivity. This potential has been overlooked because the idea of the computer as the magic motivator has drawn all the attention. A paradigm-shift in thinking is needed to illuminate the real opportunity that the computer and the Internet hold for primary grade education which I call "paperless teaching."