What are you doing at your computer? A professor who studies the balance between work and life has declared today a holiday from precisely this constant electronic communication.
That’s right, this is “Rewire Your Life Day,” says Ellen Ernst Kossek, a professor of human-resource management and organizational behavior at Michigan State University. She’s not checking e-mail today. Her cellphone is switched off. And she went out to lunch with a colleague from another department who, until today, she’d known only via electronic correspondence.
She did, however, pick up her office telephone this afternoon. “It’s a symbol,” she says, when asked whether talking on the phone violates the premise of her newly declared holiday. In other words, it’s pretty much impossible to be completely off the grid on a work day. But perhaps people can do better at not jumping around so much among communication channels for just one day a year.
“I’m worried that nobody will do it a whole day,” says Ms. Kossek, noting that she’s thinking of calling for an “Unplugged Hour” next time. Meanwhile she’s open to other names for the holiday at hand: Maybe “Unplugged Day”? What about “Face-to-Face Day”?
“I’d like people across the country to think of what we can do across campuses” to popularize the choice of one day a year to take some kind of digital reprieve, she says.
Will one day off really matter in this hectic life? “I’ve done a lot of research on recovery — it’s important to have vacations and downtime,” says Ms. Kossek. “You come back to work and you’re more refreshed.”
She doesn’t sound refreshed herself, though. She sounds nervous about all the e-mail and cellphone calls she’s missing. “I’m going to try to stay off until tomorrow morning, I don’t know if I can make it,” she says. “Maybe I should have put an ‘away’ message: ‘I’m not checking my e-mail today.’”
Asked whether that undermines her own holiday, she says such pressure is part of the point: “It’s an issues for campuses — the pace with which you’re expected to respond to an e-mail from students. We need to have new social rules for how to communicate.” —Jeffrey R. Young
30 Responses to Happy ‘Rewire Your Life Day’
22067449 - October 11, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Is there no context in which learning, and remembering how, to do arithmetic by hand is useful outside actually doing arithmetic? I find, for example, that students have more trouble with high school algebra now that they do not do arithmetic by hand. (Not to mention working out the properties of fields of fractions.) There must be some way to recognize that knowing how to do something by hand is useful even if you will usually do it on technology. (Perhaps as programs like MATLAB get more inexpensive we will no longer need to be able to deal with things like polynomials without technology. Interesting.)
juris_prudence - October 11, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Ah, but here’s the thing: the process of working through math problems in one’s head helps to TRAIN the mind to work through a problem. If students rely on a calculator to do fractions, they’re less likely to to be able to work through a real-world problem without help from another person. The two points are interrelated. Your assertion that this dependency on people has “nothing to do with technology” is simply wrong.
djr46074 - October 11, 2011 at 4:08 pm
I have noticed that the increased availability of cheap calculators coincides with an increased inability of students to perform complex quantitative biology or biochemistry calculations. I postulate that the easy availability of calculators reduces the likelihood that students will generate a detailed, step-by-step strategy for solving a problem. Instead, the students will simply start punching numbers into their calculator.
The other thing I have noticed is that the increased availability of cheap calculators coincides with a reduced ability to perform quick-and-dirty (“ballpark”) estimates. This frustrates me to no end; much of the work done in my research group relies on trainees’ ability to do rough calculations, frequently on the fly, in order to estimate the scale or scope of experiments.
rgelman - October 11, 2011 at 5:04 pm
It helps to know some facts in order to know whether the calculator is broken. if one must have made a mistake entering the data. It also helps to be able to compose and decompose numbers (including some key percents) to determine how much to tip, do mental arithmetic to get the answer faster than it would with a calculator.
dogvomit - October 11, 2011 at 7:23 pm
YES! ITS an issue. Math is the basis for logical thinking. In fact, math is logic pure and simple. It is essential that students know how to do math without cheating devices so that their learn to think logically. Otherwise, why even have school. You can look everything up on Wikipedia, can’t you? psst.
asclepias - October 11, 2011 at 10:41 pm
Hmmm. The students I know who are more calculator-dependent are the same ones who are at a loss with any real-world problem, or quasi-real world problem.
BTW, I’m using GUI Octave currently for a short project & am quite happy to find Octave with a wrapper that makes it look much more like Matlab. This particular project doesn’t hit the areas where Octave diverges from Matlab, I’ve run into those hard before though.
Raphael - October 12, 2011 at 8:09 am
I have a proposition: Have pupils program their own calculators and allow them to use those features already implemented. Advantages:
* Pupils have to be intimate with the algorithms in arithmetics, esp. those they are not today (roots, logarithms)
* Pupils do not have to “waste time” doing “stupid” computations repeatedly
* Pupils are confronted with programming at an early age
* Pupils get to know multiple languages, assuming they reimplement grammar school features later
* Pupils get an intuition on how hard it is to build correct and usable software
Disadvantage: You need a programmable computer, which is more expensive.
22067449 - October 12, 2011 at 9:49 am
Here is another solution – allow students to use calculators most of the time, particularly when dealing with real-world data. But make sure that they occasionally, say once a week, have to do a problem set with fairly simple numbers by hand.
Stephanie Hilliard - October 12, 2011 at 10:56 am
Back when I was in junior high, cheap calculators were just becoming available. My father refused to buy me one to use UNTIL I had mastered the basic mathematical functions necessary to do the math. Once I knew HOW to do the mathematical problems, then I was able to use a calculator as a short cut for doing tedious processes I had already mastered. If students are never taught how to think through the basics, without technological help, then they really don’t understand math. Once they learn how to do the math and understand the process, by all means let them use all the cheap technology necessary to save time and energy.
Valencia Andrew Browne - October 12, 2011 at 11:14 am
As a mathematics educator, it is frustrating to know that a generation of students cannot use common sense and reasoning skills to solve issues that occur in the real world and in the math classroom; i.e. the tip on a dinner bill. Learning to evaluate topics like fractions by hand teaches people, young ones especially, how to logically think through difficult situations, and use a set of specified parameters to arrive at a proper solution to the problem; this, in turn, makes them better critical thinkers and better people.
11122741 - October 12, 2011 at 11:44 am
You like Papert made an incorrect and invidious apple-orange comparison and analog. Physical hardware (technology) IS NOT THE SAME AS cognitive or conceptual technology and this core mistake is the problem with Papert’s work as well as the above.
You should read Charles Mesthane on What is technology and several recent writers in cognitive psychology as opposed to cognitive sciences and even recent research on gesture (developing understanding by doing) as an aid to developing understanding.
My eyeglasses do not help me to understand vision nor the principles by which my eyeglasses work or the science of optics or this science in a way that I could use or adapt it to new things nor can merely USING my eyeglasses to carry out some functions and get some things done. It is a classic example of Ryle’s category mistake and “performance without understanding” or algorithmic learning. there is more to any tool than just merely learning to rotely use it to do a few narrow things and tasks and when the tool “breaks” or doesn’t work the user just looks at it except if the user understands the tool and the cognitive technology upon which is is based. It is this understanding that is key and must be there and if physical technology interferes with its development then it is a problem but when it aids the development of this understanding it is a benefit.
You get at this at the end where you rightly imply that it is the meta-cognitive skills of the student (a cognitive skills set) that is what is critical important including self-regulation and self-management that is key and makes you feel that you’ve hit the prize or are on the way to it and you are indeed correct but the point is not to let the “glitter” and “ease” of technology get in the way of this learning and development or be used as a substitute for it which is more than all to common. Monkey math and monkey stat with algorithms, calculators and software is the problem and does not produce students who understand either or who are analyst or who can do analysis as i have seen over and over in my classes. Letting “calculators” be substituted for thought and the development of the requisite cognitive technology or preventing or retarding the later from happening is a problem as well as a dependency and one that should be discussed in a nuanced fashion as you are indeed correct
that the learning of the requisite cognitive technology is or seems to be happening less and less.
archman - October 12, 2011 at 11:58 am
It is reassuring to see that so many of us have observed the decline in student mathematics (or analytical reasoning skills) due at least in part to increasing reliance on calculators. I agree with almost all of the comments here.
bghansel - October 12, 2011 at 12:46 pm
A calculator never satisfactorily describes 1/3, but I can clearly picture 1/3 in my head in a much more meaningful way that 0.3333333…. Actually as long as we still measure in inches in this country, we do need to know fractions. Dress seams are 5/8″ wide for those who sew, and nuts and bolts still come in 3/8″ size, and if that’s too small, you might need to know that you should try the 1/2″ size.
Of course it’s also useful to know that a base 10 metric has its limitations.
bunicula - October 12, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Well said !
By the way, when is the last time anyone here has used a pay phone, and didn’t it used to be rude to speak on the phone in front of others ?
Robert Talbert - October 12, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Papert would absolutely agree with you that this is an excellent idea. His book “Mindstorms” is all about students learning mathematics through programming, and if a programmable calculator is too expensive, you can use the programming language Scratch which is a free download from MIT.
kgodwin - October 12, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Seriously, folks?
I know I’m probably gonna get blasted here, so let me give you a whole host of reasons to blast me:
1. I’ve never taught math.
2. It’s been forever since I learned math (1999, to be precise).
3. I am, without a doubt, calculator-dependent.
But here’s what I observed throughout my time in mathematics classrooms… The kids who had the least math aptitude were the students who were accused of being “calculator dependent”. Instructors tended to overlook the calculator dependencies of those of us who could logically jump thru all the hoops. In the end, a calculator is a computer…you put in garbage, you get garbage back out.
I’ve successfully completed calc sequences and math for engineers and scientists (I’ve been told that’s some form of Dif Eq but I no real idea what Dif Eq entails so I won’t assert much by way of that. I wouldn’t dream of performing computations by hand that I could perform using something else. I make too many basic computational errors. I don’t do “mental math” for the same reason. I won’t even use a calculator anymore because I can’t see what I’ve input – i.e. whether or not I’ve made a typo.
Taking the “human” hand out of computations is not the same thing as “calculator dependent.” Nor is needing to be able to add 792 to 439 somehow teaching you some special logical skill. Want students to have reasoning skills? Use word problems and algebra. Or only let them use dime-store addition, subtraction, multiplication and division calculators and nothing fancier than that. Letting someone punch 210/5 into a calculator isn’t seriously ruining their ability to do math later on.
As far as I can tell, the “calculator dependent” students you’re describing aren’t calculator dependent at all. They don’t have a clue what numbers to punch into the calculator – a necessary prerequisite for being dependent on one.
5768 - October 12, 2011 at 3:33 pm
Rote button-poking may be the only thing that many will ever be able to take pride in the more technology is foisted upon us. So many buttons, so little time.
greenhills73 - October 12, 2011 at 4:44 pm
When I took high school algebra, my non-mathematical mind struggled mightily, and on top of that I had a poor teacher. (Ninth-grade boys somehow managed to frequently send her from the room in tears.) My dad worked with me sometimes two hours a night on my homework so I could get it compleled and correct, yet I failed just about every quiz and test. Obviously nothing was sinking in. To this day, I often cannot solve simple everyday problems that require math. I can use a calculator, but I have no idea what values to key in.
When my oldest son took Algebra II in high school, he programmed a calculator to do complex calculations, against the advice of the teacher who claimed he needed to understand the process. He managed to get through pre-calc the following year but only earned a ‘C’ in the course because he was deficient in understanding the fundamentals. Had he not relied so heavily on the calculator in Algebra II, he might have learned more. Because of that ’C' grade, he was not allowed to enroll in calculus. Fortunately, his story had a happy ending, unlike my own. He is a gifted, sought-after, well-paid web apps developer living a comfortable life in Silicon Valley…but without even a college degree because he couldn’t do the math for a CS degree. Not everyone is going to be so lucky!
I think kids need to learn the basics of math, and if that means banning calculators from the classroom at times, then so be it.
Robert Talbert - October 12, 2011 at 5:22 pm
“If students rely on a calculator to do fractions, they’re less likely to to be able to work through a real-world problem without help from another person.”
Do we know this is the case? That there is a causative relationship between reliance on technology to do fractions and a decreased ability to do real-world problems — or any sort — without help from others? That’s an awfully strong assertion.
“Your assertion that this dependency on people has “nothing to do with technology” is simply wrong.”
I don’t think so, and I think you have my assertion wrong. Is it not the case that there are students out there who can do rote mechanics just fine by hand but need to be told whether they are “on the right track” constantly when the problems become non-routine? That kind of dependency shows in calculator-reliant students and non-reliant students alike and that is what I am saying.
Does it show up in one kind of student *more frequently* than the other? That would be question that requires careful definition, a consideration of the pedagogy being employed, and a heck of a lot of research.
Robert Talbert - October 12, 2011 at 5:25 pm
I hardly need to mention here at the Chronicle that correlation doesn’t imply causation. If there is a causative effect happening, perhaps it’s not so much the technology that causes the deficit you’re mentioning here but pedagogical trends — trends that might contribute to a decline in reasoning skills whether or not technology is present in the classroom at all. Or it might be because of a cultural shift that coincides with cheap technology. Who knows?
Robert Talbert - October 12, 2011 at 5:26 pm
I’ve heard good things about GUI Octave. Sadly, there’s no Mac OS X version of it yet. That’s OK since I like the command line anyway.
Robert Talbert - October 12, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Wouldn’t a well-designed technologically-centered project or problem do the same thing? Why do we claim that the technology take away from the learning experience?
Robert Talbert - October 12, 2011 at 5:28 pm
See above point about correlation and causation. It’s tempting to say that calculators are causing all this trouble, but I think the evidence that would point the arrow in that direction is still missing.
Robert Talbert - October 12, 2011 at 5:28 pm
What are the “basics” in your opinion?
mkt42 - October 12, 2011 at 7:29 pm
The ability to do ballpark estimates is invaluable in several fields. Anyone can punch a bunch of numbers in and print out the answer. The skilled researcher will take a look at those numbers and see if they pass the sniff test. Usually the sniff test requires at least some arithmetic calculations, and now the question is how quickly and accurately can you do those calculations in your head, and determine at a glance if the numbers are laughably incorrect? Or do you have to take out your calculator or fire up a spreadsheet and punch in some numbers to decide if the answers look okay? The slow-down factor will be enormous.
There’s no need to look for causal relationships here, this is a directly useful skill. Even good students — conditioned perhaps to doing everything on calculators — tend not to be very good at it, but it is something that I can and do teach to my student workers.
The arithmetic of course is only half of it. As others have pointed out, one also needs to know the correct way to set up the problem, i.e. the context and semantics of the equation. That’s also a skill which typically involves some arithmetic calculations. MIT used to have a contest to see who was the best educated guesser, with questions such as “how many honeybees are there in the US” or “how many airplanes are in the air flying right now”. Some of those questions would have to be updated now that many of the answers can be looked up online, but there will always be questions whose answers are not online, and have to be estimated. A good formal estimate might take weeks or months to research, but often all we want or need is a quick-and-dirty ballpark estimate to see if we are on the right track.
akajb - October 13, 2011 at 12:39 pm
My problem with allowing calculators right from the start, is that learning the order to enter numbers into a calculator and what buttons to press does not translate into understanding what it means to add or subtract or multiply or divide. If you truly understand division, you’ll know from an equation like 7 / 2 if you should expect an answer > 1 or < 1. And, it's by being able to quickly recognize these types of facts that you know if you're on the right or wrong path when solving a problem.
The other problem I see, is the number of people who, because they are dependent on and successful with calculators, believe they can do math. But, you ask them a simple question with out a calculator and they can't solve it. They *think* they can and are shocked when you tell them they're wrong.
Chris Aldrich - October 13, 2011 at 3:56 pm
First, you all might find this article “Back to Basics for the ‘Division Clueless’” about W. Stephen Wilson’s simple mathematics case study interesting: http://magazine.jhu.edu/2010/12/back-to-basics-for-the-%E2%80%9Cdivision-clueless%E2%80%9D/
Secondly, I’m reminded of a quote by mathematician Pierre Anton Grillet: “Algebra is like French Pastry: wonderful, but cannot be learned without putting one’s hands to the dough.” It is one of the most beautiful expressions of the recurring sentiment written by almost every author into the preface of nearly every mathematics text at or above the level of Calculus. They all exhort their students to actually put pencil to paper and work through the logic of their arguments and the exercises to learn the material and gain some valuable experience. I’m sure that most mathematics professors will assure you that in the end, only a tiny fraction (what is that by the way?) of their students actually do so.
While calculators are fine, we all need to realize that the structure and logic of mathematics is as much an art as it is science. Simple manipulations that can and should be done without a calculator need to be mastered to advance to more sophisticated topics, otherwise students get to a point at which their failure to master simple concepts like fractions impede their ability to move on to trigonometry or calculus in much the same way many college undergraduates’ inability to spend the time to fully master calculus the way most have mastered fractions impedes them from continuing on to master algebraic topology, differential equations, or Lie groups. Like most anything in the field of education, you simply have to do the work — something which most students don’t know or aren’t taught at the earliest stages of their academic careers.
Finally, to Robert, when I saw the title “Casting Out Nines” in an email from the Chronicle, I immediately thought, “They’ve stolen his blog title!” I’m glad to see it’s actually you getting the larger readership you deserve. I’m curious if you’d share the benefits and your experiences with cross-publishing to the Chronicle’s Blogs?
Valencia Andrew Browne - October 19, 2011 at 9:27 am
In my experience as an educator, there is always a great deal of flaw in any well-designed technology-centered project (or even paper-and-pencil projects). My point caters to introducing these technology-centered project too early in a student’s mathematics career. I feel that the students focus more on using the technology to do the project, than understanding the logical steps used to do the project.
micheleme - November 6, 2011 at 1:23 am
Grammar and writing skills are also important.
Rhonda Cornett Hill - February 22, 2012 at 1:05 pm
I stumbled across this article while researching for College paper about dependence on technology. Please pardon my lamency but I wish to convey some simpler examples. It seems we have to live with cause and effect. Why we are diffinitively trying to connect cause and effect here seems to be somewhat irrelevent when such intellectual energy need not be placed on everything. Quite simply life “is.” It is simple and complex. However; I am a 40 something going back to school after many years. I can say one thing I notice in my math class is that the calculator dependent students seem to also be more teacher dependent. What I notice is it has more to with the need to “get the answer right now” versus thinking through the steps to get the correct answer. This I feel goes back to learning basic skills and mastering them independently which will help greatly when confronted with more complex problems. The “cheap calculator” is just an aid, it cannot teach you the steps nor the reasoning skills you need to have in order to “plug numbers in.”
I remember back to when working in a restaurant when the power went out. Very few, if any, of the “calculator dependent” wait staff knew what to do in order to “cash out” their customers. I had many come to me for help. This is simple math folks. Now cause and effect here? Well the customer loses trust in their waiter/waitress in their bill being correct. This leads to frustration when the customer notices this person doesn’t really know what they are doing. Then increases the stress and work load on the co-workers who save their butt. Then the person may get fired because they can’t perform this simple task. Bigger causal probability, customers won’t want to come back because they don’t trust the establishment to hire a capable staff, then effects the restaurants bottom line, etc etc etc. Like everything in life we need balance and discretion. Once the basics are not established, then the effects may be worse. Or maybe think of it like this: You have to build a house from the ground up and it has to be done a certain way to be sound and safe. I intrepret this conversation as though (as it relates to building a house) we can offer students to just put parts together from top to bottom, side to side, w/out paying particular attention to the foundations, the roof joints etc.
The students I see running around at my school and that I share projects with, do not have as much basic reasoning skills etc. The other problem is the need to “have somthing right now.” If some sort of technology is not available, they don’t seem to be able to start to function immediately, or feel as though they are just stuck. I’m specifically referring to the times when paired up in a class impromptu, they stress when they gotta put “pen to paper.”
Overall technology is a “part” of our life, not the operating force behind it.