Marco Conceptual

Technological Deterministic (TD) and The Social Construction of Technologies (SCT). Proponents of TD believe that technology – especially the Internet – constantly changes how people act, think, develop, work, and communicate. TD theorists “view technology as an independent force that drives social change” and that “exercises causal influence on social practices…regardless of the social desirability of the change” (Mesch 51). SCT scholars believe that “social groups differ in the extent of their access to technology” and that certain groups will use technology differently than others. Therefore, technology itself cannot be an all-powerful entity that changes society as a whole; technology serves as a resource that people use according to their beliefs, careers, social status, and education (Mesch 53). For the purpose of this

dissertation I take a stance somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. Internet technology has affected everyone to a certain degree, but the extent of change on individuals depends on many social, economic, environmental, and biological factors. However, the majority of my students (Advanced and Honors level, upper-middle class) fall into the technological deterministic category. Each day, I observe the way that my students interact with each other. I see how they solve problems, read, research, and react to the world. On any given day in my AP Language class, students, when finished with an assignment, will choose to look at their smart phones to check Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Tumblr, Vine, email, texts, and Google. Then, they either play games on their phones or start the social media cycle all over again. Every semester, the number of students who choose to read in print during downtime diminishes. Last semester,

only one of my students (out of 110) opened a book when he had time. The others chose to look at their phones and occasionally talk with friends (usually about something they were looking at on the phone). Another of my AP students did a self-case study for her research paper in which she did not use her smart phone (except to make calls) for one week. Her findings were eye opening. Although *Megan is a high-achieving student with several extra-curricular

responsibilities, she averaged about four hours a day on her phone. When she took the phone away, she completed homework expeditiously, spent more time with family, and even read books for pleasure.

Proponents of TD assert that technology affects the way that people work and

communicate. My students are addicted to technology: the girl who researched her use of the smart phone failed to enlist others to participate because her peers were unwilling to relinquish their phones for a week. Other students feel uncomfortable if their phone is not in view, and of course, learners today “Google” their questions instead of using a book. They would rather communicate via their phones than in a face-to-face encounter. Students even engage in “text” relationships. These are the students who must take the same tests given before personal

computers were invented. And, what about the workplace? My students will be in the workforce in less than ten years. How productive are they going to be? How has the corporate world had to adapt to meet the needs of younger personnel? That is a different topic, one that begs to be explored.

Students are not the only ones who face challenges adapting to the technological shift. Teachers have trouble as well, because they have one point of reference: their own high school experience that took place before the shift or in the middle of it. A new teacher, fresh out of college, would have gone to high school from approximately 2005-2010. In 2005, My Space had

gained popularity, Facebook had just taken off, and Twitter, Vine, Reddit, and Instagram did not exist. Students had some distractions through social media, but nothing like they do now.

In Writing New Media (2004), Johnson-Eilola pinpoints a problem many current teachers encounter at their schools and inside their classrooms: “[Teachers] tend, despite all of our

sophisticated theorizing, to teach writing much as [they] have long taught it: the creative production of original words in linear streams” (200). Most of America’s standardized

assessments contain timed essays, which students must write from beginning to end. As a result, many high school classrooms continue to use the five-paragraph method as their primary

assessment in order to prepare students for testing. In fact, the SAT test-prep course teaches students to use the formula so they can finish the essay.

Students do not read or write on their own in a linear fashion nearly as much as they used to before the Internet. When they click on a URL, they may read a few lines of text and then explore another link that brings them to an external website. Later, they may find that they have read parts of a dozen web sites and blogs before they find what they wanted. Additionally, while students are searching, they multitask: checking email, social media sites, and texts. Rarely does today’s student find an article or essay online and read it in its entirety. Many children still read books, of course, but in their everyday lives, their thinking, reading, and writing is primarily non- linear. It makes little sense that standardized writing assessments require students to write with a formula with none of the fluidity of the Internet. What must concern test writers is that by the time current students become teachers, they will find linearity a foreign concept – uncomfortable and wrong.

While testing certainly plays an important part in students’ lives, what about the real life that comes after the test? Innovative problem solvers are usually the ones who get ahead in the

workforce. Parker and Chao assert that “collaborative creativity promises to be a key business skill in upcoming years” (67), and if teachers want to prepare students to achieve, their lessons should start modeling that creativity. Grant Wiggins, one of the premier scholars on composition theory, “maintains [that standardized tests] lack authenticity [and] argues that students should be engaged in deep, meaningful activities that make use of their constructed understanding of the world around them” (Zwaagstra et al 33). Most writers know that writing takes time and involves a “process of arrangement and connection” necessary for an effective product (Johnson-Eilola 202). And yet, timed writing assessments are a universal form of writing evaluation. Students rely on their essay scores to get into advanced classes, complete Advanced Placement exams, graduate from high school, pass the SAT, and enter college. While some people excel in timed writing, most do not write nearly as well as they would with opportunities for pre-writing,

editing, and re-writing. Other scholars assert that timed essays do offer students the opportunities to problem-solve, and the method that a student uses to go about the writing process could be considered “creativity” in some instances. However, in any standardized test, the primary goal must be to test skills and knowledge in the subject area being tested, not the creative methods a student develops to “beat the system.”