The Equalizing Power of Mobile Technology

During class last Wednesday there were a few things that got me thinking. I jotted them down at the time, but now I think I'll expand a little on each one.

At one point in class, Professor Kim said: "Mobile technology has done more equalizing than anything else in human history." It seems to me that this is in large part true, but it is hardly necessary that it will continue to do so. Really, mobile technology, like many technologies, is full of potential, providing a powerful equalizing framework, but is not itself equalizing per se. For example, we might have said the same thing about industrialized agriculture, but while the sudden availability of cheap food - a basic necessity of life - certainly makes it seem like we might be able to support larger populations with more equalized opportunity, it has certainly done nothing of the kind. Like with industrial agriculture, is there a way in which mobile technology might simply serve to perpetuate already existent discrepancies between the wealthy and the poor? Doesn't it matter who leverages the technology and for what purpose? In other words, don't Nokia and Verizon and AT&T stand to gain more than people?

A big part of answering those questions is considering a more fundamental one: can meaningful education occur on a mobile phone? What is education: is it the dissemination of information, or is it a specific training in thinking process? If the latter, what mobile technology can successfully "teach?" I agree that providing better access to resources (information, lesson plans, research, etc) is helpful, but without a teacher, can education really happen? Without that metacognitive step - learning how to learn - the teacherless student will always be at a disadvantage compared to the student in a school. Of course, that's not to say we shouldn't provide new mobile technologies to children who otherwise would have no opportunity to learn, but how equalizing is that technology, really?

On the other hand, I would agree that it would be nice to find a way to equalize somehow, and mobile technology is certainly more obviously powerful in this regard than former technological breakthroughs. The lynchpin, it seems, is motivation, as Professor Kim says. Perhaps mobile technology cannot replace a teacher, but it would be foolish to imagine that students cannot adequately learn without what we traditionally call an "education" if he cares enough. Professor Kim's stories bear out this fact: kids who have a reason to engage in learning will do so.

This more hands-off approach, while necessary due to the resources (or lack thereof) in third-world countries, also has the advantage of staying out of the way. The notion that kids need to be shown how to do everything is a silly one, born of our own difficulty when not told what to do. In societies where everyone must learn without instructions, there is no need to break that mold. Children will learn how to use mobile technology, even without the instructions or a teacher, and moreover will figure out how to use the applications embedded in the technology. Because they are engaging, and not being forced to engage, they will also find the things that are most relevant to them naturally, with out being forced to study or learn about things that do not help them. There are two sides to that conversation of course - do students know what's best, or do teachers? - but the fact that it is debateable means it's worth giving the kids a chance to determine their own learning available.

To me the key remains metacognition. If you can create metacognition - a consciousness of the process of learning, and an understanding of how it happens - a student will change their attitude towards learning, and will learn to engage with motivation regardless of obvious external rewards. If motivation is the key to education, metacognition is the key to motivation. So how do you get there with moble technology?