We were discussing students and the challenges we've been facing implementing our school's 1-1 program when one of my colleagues said it.
It went something like this, "Joe and George sit on the carpet and play videogames beside each other and it's Not Real relationship."
I struggled with this. I didn't say anything at the time, but it felt wrong. I couldn't articulate it then, but I think this sentiment is wrong.
To those two boys, sitting down beside each other with their devices and playing games is relationship. It is Real. Those two boys struggle to make connections with other students. They function on a different wavelength. Here they found someone else to connect with in a way they understood. But because it is not what we are used to it's "Not Real".
(Mind you, I do agree with my colleagues that the time and place they had chosen to do this was not what we would like and fully support the changes that we agreed to make. Real or not it has an appropriate time and place. )
I strongly support the idea that relationships are fundamental to the human condition. After all God is Love and we are made in his image. Therefore we function best in relationship.
What bothers me is the instant rejection of digital relationships as being "Not Real".
I also believe that we must be whole people. We need relationships that are physical, auditory, visual, emotional and so much more. Having relationships that are only one dimensional is unhealthy. Digital or otherwise.
But I believe that relationships that occur through a digital medium can be part of a healthy life. I believe that they Are Real.
Different, but Real.
This is my professional Blog where I share my personal thoughts on education.
Interesting ideas, Alex. I have often wondered if technology might be an avenue or one more way to building relationships. After all, more and more people are meeting through 'technology' and dating websites. I wonder if your colleague was more concerned that the "gaming" and the amount of time that many young people invest in the "virtual" world might take away from their engagement with others.
ReplyDeleteYou may very well be right. I can't speak to the intent of my colleague. I only know my own reaction. I am also reacting to a number of other conversations I've had over the past month where I have perceived similar attitudes towards digital connections. (Of course, I suspect my own biases are colouring my reactions!)
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that at least having the conversation is of value. Either wrong or right, we have lost the concept that we have to be (and/or teach) the filter needed to use technology. If we suggest gaming besides each other is developing a relationship, would gaming in two different locations be developing a relationship? (Even if it's two different games, no actual connection or interaction). If the answer is yes, then why even meet? If the answer is no, let's teach how to do it 'ritght'. However the theory that gaming besides someone can be building a relationship is an old and dated (at least on 21st century terms) argument that is quickly becoming an ideology that some are trying to justify. This is all said while your post lacked some detail: are they collaborating in/on the game, is it educational and the purpose developed for some sort of relationship building, is it just 'fun/down time' in the classroom, etc. However, I am happy that people are having the conversation so for that I am thankful for your post.
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for your reply!
DeleteI find it interesting that you say "we have lost the concept that we have to...teach the filter needed to use technology". I would argue strongly that we very much need to teach filters. I get frustrated by the "Digital Natives" idea. The idea that these kids just know how to use the technology well inherently. Our children need us more than ever to teach them discernment, especially when using technology. This is one of the reasons I believe we must engage with the technology especially in the ways that our students are using it.
I did leave out quite a few of the details of the particular incident my colleague was reacting to. It was a case where the students were using technology at a time they weren't supposed to. We as staff were discussing the best ways to address that as we move into the next year. But near the end of this conversation the statement was made that the two boys playing video games together was "Not real" interaction. Except that it can be. It also can be divisive as you point out. There are many varieties of healthy and unhealthy interactions and we must learn to discern between them. What bothered me most was the reaction that threw away the positive and healthy elements that can exist in digital interactions.