“Among the Greatest Benefactors of mankind”: What the success of Chalkbaords Tells us about the Future of Computers in the Classroom. The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, Vol. 33, No. 2, Computers and the Future of the Humanities (Spring, 2000), 6-16.
Motivation: seeking historical parallel to address the common assumption that technology isn’t necessary to teach English. “Just use what’s there,” some colleagues say (6) .
Critics note that even disappeared or naturalized writing technologies still have ideological influence (cites Bruce and Hogan, Baron). Writing long has a history of disassociation with technology (Wendell Berry’s wife typed his poems). Plato worried that writing would reduce wisdom, insulate people from each other, the first critique of technology associated with writing (writing itself as a technology, in fact).
Origin of chalkboards: early 19th century. Prior to that, schooling was individual. Discusses some reforms that seem ludicrious now–Jos Lancaster’s system had 1:284 teacher/student ratio! “it kept costs low by minimizing the use of paper, ink, pens, and books and b/c it facilitated group instruction by monitors and teachers” (10). Chalkboards spread and were quickly well-loved and widely-adopted. One commenter said that the chalkboard’s inventor “deserves to be ranked among the best contributors to learnign and science, if not among the greatest benefacotrs of manking” (11).
What makes the chalkboard a successful technology: it’s cheap, reliable, ubiquitous, lasts long–many qualities lacking in computers (although less so as time goes on, imho).
Side note: I just found a quirky Reed College essay on the chalkboard and teaching with technology. Interesting photos.
Back to Krause: it’s easy to accept a technology that enhances what you were doing anyway. Word processing, for example, is easily accepted, as is e-mail. But computers in classrooms sometimes are expected tochange teaching. “It is pedagogy that motivates the use of improved technologies, not the technologies that motivates imporvements in pedagogy” (14).
Ends with a call to think about change: “we need to work harder in emphasizing change in our pedagogical acproaches so that computers are seen as essential and as natural in the classrom as chalkboards” (15).
******************
Questions to ponder: what’s driving the development of a pedagogy? why do people change what they do? and when should they?
Interesting contrast in terms of a technology that enhances what is already done vs. a technology that requires change.
