Time to fight off this attack on education

Zombie ideas are a sub-category of undead ideas—they can still motivate action despite being harmful and wrong. Education has been under attack from a few zombie ideas, but none has the resilience of ‘technology can teach.’

First, let us be clear about what we are not talking about. We are not talking about the use of computers or the internet to access content—for example, a teacher showing a biology class a video of a pumping heart, which would not be possible without the net. We are also not talking about the enablement of communication among students or between students and teachers. The possibility of accessing content and communicating through technology is as useful in education as elsewhere.

But ‘technology can teach’ differs. It suggests that instead of teachers, technology can do their job. For many reasons, including political correctness and fear of a blowback from teachers, this zombie idea is often couched in platitudes about the importance of teachers. Unmasked, however, the idea becomes clear.

This zombie attack comes in one wave after another. Some of us will remember the fascination with putting up a computer in a hole in wall and then claiming we could forget all about teachers and schools. ‘One laptop per child,’ or OLPC as it was called, was another wave of this attack. There have been variants of this across the world, including in India, where providing tablets or laptops to students has been thought of as a panacea for all ills in our education system.

This zombie idea has two variants. Variant one is that you don’t need a teacher. You just need to give a student a computer that will teach the child. The second variant is that you do need a human being, but she can be more like a dumbwaiter device at a restaurant. The technology tells her exactly what to do and she just passes that on, as though passing food from the kitchen to the dining room. Both these ideas are downright wrong.

At the heart of education is the teacher and her relationship with her students. This simple truth, repeatedly proven through experience, research and even the slightest thoughtful consideration, continues to get attacked.

Why is this idea such a powerful zombie? Why does it refuse to die? Where does its ballast come from? It is energized and driven by a confluence of factors and forces.

The first is money. People in the technology sector usually make a lot of money and often use that money to push their ideas, even dead ones. But it’s not just that. People in technology stand to make even more money by turning dead ideas into zombies. It’s just another way to sell what they make; more use of technology results in larger markets and repeat purchases.

The second is a deeply flawed normative structure of our society, partly driven by money, which suggests that technology and its use are inherently good; that the use of technology by its very nature marks progress, and that anybody who raises doubts about this is being obscurantist or a Luddite.

The third factor is the problem of ‘solutionism.’ There are certain kinds of roles and institutions—ranging from policy circles and think-tanks to universities—whose influence and currency depend on coming up with ‘solutions,’ irrespective of their actual utility, efficacy on the ground or final effects at any meaningful level. They are the prime purveyors of this craft. Not all, but many.

Money, a delusional belief in the normative goodness of technology and ‘solutionism’ form a trifecta that tends to empower and perpetuate the zombie idea that ‘technology can teach.’

We seem to be in the midst of a new wave of attack. The claim now is that ‘technology powered by artificial intelligence (AI) can teach.’ Again, it is sugar-coated to reduce valid and needed resistance and natural outrage.

The problem with such zombie attacks is not only their pointlessness, as they eventually abate; it is that they are profoundly harmful because they distract us—our attention and resources—from what can really improve education. This is not a trivial matter. This distraction and wrong use of resources can make generations of children suffer. But in the case of this latest AI-powered ‘technology can teach’ zombie attack, it is much worse. This technology can corrode the capacity of teachers and students to think, which would demolish the core purpose of education.

We must counter this zombie attack with urgency and force. This time around, I am hopeful that our response will be quicker. Since the confluence of money and delusion is far more obvious in the case of AI, there is a large contingent from within the technology sector that recognizes the danger. Some are willing to battle the zombie. Being a zombie, it won’t die. But this time, we must curtail the extent to which we let it haunt us.

The author is CEO of Azim Premji Foundation.