Choose your words carefully

Image by Alan Levine on Flickr

A few days ago, while walking through Auckland Airport in New Zealand, I indulged in some moblogging. I wrote a post on my smartphone entitled 'Any computer who can be replaced by a teacher, should be.' It was a tongue in cheek play on the famous quote from Arthur Clarke who said 'Any teacher who can be replaced by a computer, should be.' Clarke was not championing technology, but rather identifying the need for teachers to reach beyond instructional and didactic methods into deeper engagement with their students. During that period, computers were quite rudimentary and were mainly being used in education to present text and test learning through simple multiple choice questions. I know, because I was one of those programming the software that made it happen.

My post argued that teachers should not and could not be fully replaced by technology, because of the rich emotional, relational and creative aspects of the role they performed. There was an immediate response from many in the computing and education communities, some arguing for, and some against this position. Unfortunately, a very few chose their words poorly in their attempts to refute my position. (It's often the case on social media that some are unable to frame their arguments without a personal dig at their opponents). I consider some of these people my friends, while others are not personal acquaintances.

Let's start with one of the major fomenters of this debate. Sugata Mitra shared the link to my blogpost on his Facebook page (thanks Sugata) with the words: 'An emotional piece from Steve Wheeler.' He then proceeded to make some comparisons with humans replacing technology. Some were humorous, whilst others were pointed out by commenters as inappropriate. Sugata, when our paths next cross, hopefully we will enjoy another drink or meal and exchange some ideas, but a word to the wise - a more appropriate word to describe my piece might be 'passionate'. It has more appropriate connotations than 'emotional', which implies that I might not have been fully in control of my writing. Whether you intend it or not, the use of value laden words tends to force you into a judgemental stance.

The exchanges that followed were interesting. Some challenged Sugata about his position on teachers, and others supported him. Lenandlar Singh for example remarked on Twitter: 'It's actually shocking that he would interpret what @timbuckteeth said in that fashion.' Some were less charitable. A war of personalities ensued, and the original topic was sidelined. It all reminds me of the Paul Simon lyric - a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.  

Discussion should be encouraged. The last thing we need is another echo chamber where everyone agrees with each other. But we need some ground rules. Some critics chose their words poorly to articulate their dislike of my position, or indeed that of Sugata. Teemu Leinonen called the examples I presented in my post 'extreme and simple'. Now, I would settle for 'radical', which again has more acceptable connotations than 'extreme'. Then Teemu targeted the headline, which was meant to be emotive, and thought that this was 'extreme' too. Well Teemu, sometimes a little goading is necessary for a deeper discussion of issues to be promoted, and it seemed to make this happen. But the best quote was when he suggested my post was 'internet-like'. Er, Teemu - you read it on the internet. What do you expect?

The quote of the day however, goes to Sarge Salman, who said my post was 'bizarre and disjointed'. And yet he understood my argument and proceeded to engage with it. Not bad for a 'disjointed essay' Sarge? It would probably have been wiser for you to engage with the topic rather than criticise my literary style - all you managed to do was distract from the theme of the discussion. We should all choose our words more carefully if we wish to engage dialogically. Thinly veiled value judgements on the capabilities of your opponent create the opposite effect.

Martyn Wild's comments were extensive and perhaps the most balanced in the entire thread. I agree with some of you commentary Martyn, but I take issue with your characterisation of teachers. Yes, students can learn in spite of their teachers, and yes, all of us have the capability to be teachers, especially parents. But you miss the point, and it's something I have articulated it previously here. Anyone can be a teacher, but only a few are educators. This is something that requires a genuine human with emotions, affection, empathy, life experience, artistry and a whole range of other traits that enable true educators to connect at a deeper level with students. Educators go the extra mile, and move beyond mere 'teaching'. It's a philosophical question that will take much more space to unpack than we have on social media. It deserves a wider public debate. Finally, I'm disappointed Martyn that you do not see teachers as anything particularly special, but are comfortable to privilege 'great artists and great composers' above them. We each have a role to play in society, but to replace any of our artistry with technology (and that includes great artists and composers) would be a great shame.

No, I won't take back a single word of my blog post, and I won't have my voice (or the voices of countless other teachers around the world) drowned out by the strong AI agenda that seeks to promote technology as a replacement for human interaction. I restate my case:

1. Teachers perform a very significant and powerful role in education. The role is too important to be fully replaced by technology.
2. Some aspects of teachers' work can be replaced by technology, releasing them to engage more with their students.
3. Technology has an important role to play in education, as long as it can enrich, extend and enhance learning and teaching. If it can't, we shouldn't be using it.

The bottom line is this: when you resort to poor choice of words to argue your case, you can detract from your own argument. The focus becomes not what you say, but the way you have said it. If you use words that encourage discussion, others will engage with you, and the focus will be on the points of the debate. So please, if you want to continue to engage in this discussion, choose your words carefully.


Choose your words carefully by Steve Wheeler was written in Plymouth, England and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.