Killing Confirmation Bias in Ed Tech and Personalized Learning
Like most in this social media and smartphone age, I get a lot of my information—either news or stories—through Facebook and Twitter. Indeed, I don’t read the paper nor do I even go to a news website. Instead, I follow news agencies and “talking head” political analysts on social media. I must make a public confession that I, like many in our age, have retweeted or shared an article that I did not vet and did not read. The headline, central claim from the one sharing it, or the image or video itself drove me to share. Indeed, some bias within me had been confirmed, and my immediate instinct was to hit retweet. Rarely do I hover over the button, wondering if it is true. No, it must be true, and everyone needs to be outraged like me or see that I was right! And like most, there have been several times when one more critical than I has responded back with a “Fake News” comment or a link to Snopes. I hate to admit it, but I’ve had to walk back a shared post on more than one occasion.
But this tendency is not isolated to me alone. In an age of outrage, the dominating force of confirmation bias looms. Eli Pariser (2011), author of the Filter Bubble, and James Paul Gee (Z) author of The Anti-education Era, have argued that the internet creates for us a warm cocoon in which one tends to surround themselves with confirming voices, like-minded people, and supportive news agencies. What is relevant to us, has led to information isolation.
Similarly, like a hissing-vampire confronted with garlic or the demonically possessed at the sight of the cross, Fox News or CNN may repel the hyper-political at its mere mention. However, giving room for disagreement and multiple perspectives and voices in good faith in necessary for our intellectual health. And likewise, bursting the filter bubble is necessary not just in politics, but in education.
Students need these same skills and a healthy and critical attitude toward information vetting. We must help them navigate information in the age of “Fake News,” confirmation bias, and outrage retweet culture.
But how do I expect to guide my students to a place that I refuse to go myself?
And while politics is rife for disagreement, so too is the field of education. As a technophile and (unfortunately) labeled the tech guru at my school, I have a bias concerning the role of tech in the classroom. To make matters worse, I teach in disciplines that are slow to embrace or adapt to new education innovations. While not as bad as the Mathematics department (sorry math enthusiast!), the Histories and Classics are slow—if not outright resistant—to change. I teach AP Histories and Latin and have a love for all things antique. These two loves make me an odd fellow with feet in two very different camps. On the one hand, I nerd-out with the STEM teachers on the latest innovations, and on the other, I lament the decline of reading Plato and the dwindling number of students taking Latin.
My twitter feed is dominated by tech-advocates, teachers with Google class tips, and pedagogical innovators calling for the personalized learning revolution. I have not had many voices from the classics because, frankly, I disagree with them. I understand the merits of reading Plato and learning Latin, but I do not see the demon in the device sitting on my student’s desk. Outright calling for Plato over iPad, there is a movement of classical education advocating for low- or no-tech education. Perhaps they have a point, and we’ve dove headlong into tech with all that it promises. Perhaps personalization will not be able to deliver on all that it boasts. After all, maybe there is value in the traditional methods and uniformity of a single pathway concerning core content and skills.
To give space to these voices, I have followed several schools and advocates for low- or no-tech classical education. I have also pursued a variety of views—both critical and supportive of personalized learning.
Here are the new voices I’m following on Twitter:
Seeing their best intentions, I have chosen not to outright dismiss their position as wrong-headed. Instead, I am approaching them as one who does not know everything and can learn why they came to the conclusions that they did. Whether this transforms my approach, only time will tell. But it indeed challenges my assumptions and forces me to become a more thoughtful teacher.
LINKS TO NEW VOICES ON TWITTER:
The Association of Waldorf Schools of North America — low/no-tech education advocates
Sherry Turkle — Author and tech critic researching the negative social effects of technology
Ridgeview Classical Schools — Organization dedicated to low-tech classical education
Tristan Harris — Co-founder, Center for Humane Technology. Address the global threat posed by runaway attention-maximizing technology.
Daniel Willingham — critical of personalized learning and giving students too much choice
Institute for Catholic Liberal Education — Organization advocating No/low-tech and critical of standards-based education
Alex Hernandez — advocate for personalization
Benjamin Riley — critical of personalization
Summit Schools — network of public schools focused on personalized learning
John F. Pane — author of recent empirical study on Personalization and found it resulted in better student performance. He is an active researcher on personalized learning.
WORK CITED
Gee, J.P. (2013). The anti-education era: creating smarter students through digital learning. New York, NY. St. Martin’s Griffin.
Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding From You. Westminster, London. Penguin.
