A Critique of the Aesthetic Experience of Learning with Computers

A critique of the aesthetic experience of learning with computers

Rationale and conceptual framework

Many others before me have lined up to voice intelligent skepticism about the use of computers in education. Popular targets for concern have included the overselling and under use of computers (Cuban, 1993; Healy, 1999: Noble, 1996), isolation from the social and natural world (Louv, 2006), and the “digital divide” (Forest, 2001; Oppenheimer, 2004). I am hoping to offer an original and provocative take on this issue by focusing on the aesthetic qualities of learning with computers. The theme of my critique is that computers often lead to an-aesthetic, rather than aesthetic, learning experiences.

What is an aesthetic experience? I draw on Dewey’s (1934) work to suggest that an experience is aesthetic to the degree that it unfolds over time, contains dramatic elements such as tension, buildup, culmination, and fulfillment, and reveals new meaning and significance through a back-and-forth transaction between the learner and object. Although aesthetics is often associated with the arts, aesthetic experiences can be had with any object, idea, or happening where perception takes on greater acuity and depth (Dewey, 1934: Jackson, 1998). Also, Dewey’s aesthetic experience is much more than a simple emotional response or a matter of individual taste. Instead, the aesthetic experience is one of the most complete experience possible integrating intellect, intuition, emotion, and action - all that makes us human.

Dewey’s aesthetics is a useful framework for analyzing students’ experience of computers because it offers a distinct, coherent normative stance on what learning should be. This will not be a “scattershot” diatribe coming from all angles while remaining ambiguous about what would constitute a worthwhile experience of learning with computers. Finally, this is not a critique of all computer use. Computers are a de facto, important part of school and everyday life. To condemn all computer use in schools would be pointless and irresponsible. I consider my critique to be moderate, rather than radical, focused rather than broad. Now, to the issue of how learning with computers is often not an aesthetic experience.

Critique points

In my presentation, I will discuss about a half dozen challenges to having aesthetic learning experiences with computers. As a faculty member in the Educational Technology and Educational Psychology program at Michigan State University, I have had many opportunities to observe the use of computers in the classroom. Each point will be illustrated with a specific case and photographs from my work. Dewey’s aesthetics provides a framework from which to analyze each case and, importantly, to suggest how things might be different. Below, I briefly describe the main critique points.

Visually impaired? Perception, visual and otherwise, is central to all aesthetic experiences. It is essential for perception to expand and deepen as the aesthetic experience unfolds. With this in mind, we become aware of how computers often constrain rather than afford perception. For example, Mandler (1978) discusses how humans are acutely aware of the difference between a flat two-dimensional image and the real thing. (He suggests standing with a friend in front of mirror and looking alternately at their reflection and the person directly. The difference will be instantly obvious). Furthermore, our life at the screen is visually limited to a fifteen-inch diagonal world set at a constant distance of about twenty inches from our face. The unchanging size, depth, and direction of our seeing seems hardly suited to the development of our capacity for perception. Granted, sometimes narrowing of our perceptual scope has its benefits, especially when related to increased focus. But, this is not the case here. Finally, photographs of just about any computer labs will show how much of the visual space in the room is dominated by the computers themselves. Even in laptop classrooms, computer “screens” still create a figurative and literal wall directly in front of the students.

Fear and... As any technology coordinator knows, a lot of resources are spent on computing safety and security. Everywhere, there are locks, keys, passwords, filters, anti-virus software, and disinfectants. From a students’ point of view, a major portion of their education about computer use is learning about the wide array of dangers. Computer class is not all that different from health class where the main messages are “It’s a dangerous world out there” and “You’d better watch yourself and be careful.” Loav’s (2006) recent book suggest that technology, along with our American tendency to be paranoid about just about everything, has created a “Nature Disorder Syndrome” where children no longer experience Nature directly. I assert that our life in the computer world itself is saturated with a similar fear and distrust. From an aesthetic point of view, full engagement in compelling experiences requires trust and a belief that things will be alright. I assert that our never-ending concern for safety arouses fear, skepticism, and self-consciousness – powerful antidotes to aesthetic experiences.

…loathing. Things in the computer world often do not work well. The systems are complex, not fully tested, and used in many different ways by people who are not experts. Whatever the reason, much of our time and energy is spent getting technology to simply work. All too often, I have seen the creative flow of my students come to a complete and frustrating stop as they deal with technical problems. Technology educators often respond by asserting that an important part of being technologically literate is learning how to problem-solve when things do not go as expected. I agree that a healthy problem-solving frame of mind is important to develop. However, since technology is most often used a tool to accomplish something else - say creating a digital movie – rather than as an end in itself, we should be cautious about how much time is spent figuring out how to make the tools to work properly. Yes, one must learn how to use a DV camera to capture compelling moving images, but I question how much time should be spent working out the idiosyncrasies of getting a particular DV camcorder to communicate with a particular editing program. And, yes, Dewey’s (1934) aesthetic experience is surely rich in challenges and problem-solving activity. However, this intellectual energy is focused, in large part, on inquiring into the meaning of a situation rather than how to use the tools of inquiry.

Assume the position. This is my most provocative critique point. As I walk around my technology class or past the offices of my colleagues, I notice something quite remarkable. I am struck by their stillness: they exhibit little physical movement except for the fingers. The hands are in front, close together. When seeing this “behavior”, if you can call inaction behavior, I am inclined to see the person as lifeless (or, perhaps, in a position of worship!) Of course the person is neither dead nor praying, yet we might be compelled to wonder how action and posture are related to consciousness. Socio-historical psychologist (e.g., Vygotsky) and existentialist philosophers (e.g., Kierkegaard, Sartre) assert that our activity is fundamental in defining who we are. The meaning and value of our existence is not an a priori given; rather, it is created in our actions. Thus, if we spend large portions of our time motionless with computers, what does that mean in terms of who have become? Perhaps, we can take comfort in the notion that learning with a computer is an internal, cognitive activity. Even so, the question still can be raised: how does the lack of physical movement affect cognitive activity? The inert and static position of computer use is certainly not one associated with vitality. Even “The Thinker”, Rodin’s archetypal representation of cogitation, has an elbow on the knee and the body turned slightly and leaning forward: a position that suggests a dynamic potential for movement. Jackson (1998) reminds us that in aesthetic experiences there is ”wholehearted responsiveness… a condition of alertness quite unlike the kind of half-awake stupor that marks our usual condition and suffices to get us through most of the day.” I’m concerned that computer use may only further em-body in us the half-awake stupor that Jackson warns us against.

“It should work”: Faith, virtues, epistemology in technology. “It should work.” Although not a documented fact, my experiences clearly suggest that this is the most common response from a tech support person when helping someone with a computer problem. The utterance seems innocuous enough, especially when said without condescension. But, let’s take a closer look. Why say, “it should work” rather than “it usually works”? Why overlook the empirical fact that it isn’t working for this person, and that it may not have worked for others as well? If the weather forecast calls for clear skies and it ends up raining, no one says, “well, it should be clear.” Meteorology is a science, but we all accept that it is not an exact science. Why not the same for computer use? (On any given day, I suspect the chance of avoiding a technology problem is much higher than the chance of the weather forecaster being wrong. Yet, we still believe “it should work.”)

I suggest “it should work” reveals our abiding faith in the logic and goodness of computer technology. Kierkegaard famously defined faith as “a subjective certainty about an objective uncertainty.” It is an empirical fact that the technology is not working for the individual being helped. Yet, our faith in the logic – the “rightness” - of computer technology is so strong that we overlook what is right before us and defer to a “higher”, abstract ideal. Also, “it should work” implies that the cause of the problem is something other than the technology itself. Therefore, when the “problem space” seems to consist of only the technology and the user, there is little need to spell out which of the two is the cause of the trouble. Perhaps, this implicit assigning of blame to the user rather than the computer lends insight to technophobia?

Marx, and later Vygotsky, saw a relationship between the consciousness of a society (superstructure) and the tools used to get work done (basis). The culture of a particular time and place emerges from the technology used to solve practical problems. What culture and consciousness are emerging in this era when computers are so universal used? One important aspect of a culture is its values. The culture of computer technology clearly values power, efficiency, speed, and quantity. I argue and give examples of situations where these values conflict directly with aesthetic values of sensitivity to nuance, patience, and openness to surprise. Jackson (1994) emphasizes that worthwhile aesthetic experiences “elicit our thoughtful attention” and “teach us to look and to listen carefully. Thus, aesthetic experiences usually require us to expend unusual amounts time and effort. By contrast, the value of technology experiences is often the degree that it reduces our expenditure of time and effort.

I will conclude my presentation by addressing my own critique and offering some suggestions for how the experience of learning with computers might become more aesthetic.

References

Burniske, R. W. (2000). In defense of computer illiteracy: The virtues of not learning. Teachers College Record, Date Published: 9/13/00 http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 10526

Cuban, L. (1993). Computers meet classroom: Classroom wins. Teachers College Record, 95(2), 185-210.

Dewey, J. (1934). Art as Experience. Perigree: New York. (LW.10).

Eisner, E. W. (1985). Aesthetic modes of knowing. NSSE Yearbook. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Forest, J. (2001). Digital Dilemma: Issues of Access, Cost, and Quality in Media-enhanced and Distance Education. Teachers College Record, Date Published: 1/9/01 http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 10678

Healy, J. (1999). Failure to Connect: How Computers Affect Our Children's Minds and What We Can Do About It. Touchstone.

Jackson, P. W. (1998). John Dewey and the Lessons of Art. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Jackson, P. W. (1994). Thinking About the Arts in Education: A Reformed Perspective. Teachers College Record, 95(4), 542-554.

Louv, R. (2006). Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.

Mandler, J. (1978). Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. HarperCollins.

Noble, D. D. (1996). Mad Rushes into the Future: The Overselling of Educational Technology. Educational Leadership, 54(3).

Postman, N. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business

Oppenheimer, T. (2004). The Flickering Mind: The False Promise of Technology in the Classroom. Random House.

Wong, E. D. (in press). Beyond control and rationality: Undergoing, aesthetics, and educative experiences. Teachers College Record.