I connect, therefore I am

Having watched Turkle’s 2012 TED Talk Connected, but Alone? and read Wesch’s 2010 article Anti-Teaching: Confronting the Significance Problem, I have come to view both as allies. To be sure, Wesch seems to be more okay with (and encouraging of) the presence of technology and media in our everyday lives than Turkle. However what seems abundantly clear from both of these individuals is that both are determined to create opportunities for authentic human connection. For Turkle, getting to a place where genuine human connection can occur requires technology to be put to the side intermittently, so that people have “time to talk.. [and] reconsider how we use [technology]... to develop a more self aware relationship with them [meaning technology], with each other, and with ourselves” (Turkle, 2012). On the other hand, for Wesch, technology is used as a catalyst for human connection; it is the hook to engage his students in their coursework as well as the vehicle to document their learning together over the course of a semester. 

To borrow our idea of a dinner party, I see Turkle and Wesch as the type of guests who remain at the table after the plates have been cleared, talking passionately about where their positions overlap and diverge. I foresee Turkle insisting that her research suggests that the average individual’s phone use isolates them from the world whereas Welsch acknowledges her work but counters by citing his classroom experiences as spaces where technology is used as a means by which his students can connect with one another and display their learning, not just with each other but with the world at large. 

Based on the information presented in their pieces, I would also argue that both accept the belief that today’s youth are digital natives (as defined by Presnky), however, I suspect that if Boyd was also invited to this party Turkle would look to her for support in sighting that our youth still require direct instruction to develop the skills for utilizing technology responsibly. I see this connection most clearly when Turkle is describing her theory of the Goldilocks effect: “But what might feel just right for that middle aged executive can be a problem for an adolescent who needs to develop face-to-face relationships'' (Turkle, 2012). Here, Turkle’s point reminds me of Boyd’s main criticism of Prensky’s: that one cannot assume all youth are digital natives due to the fact that not all have the same level of access to technology as well as the skills required to critically consume media.

That said where Turkle would find an ally, I think Wesch would find an opponent. Specifically, I think Wesch would push back on the idea that our youth require direct instruction to obtain the skills and knowledge they need to be successful in life. According to Wesch (2010), “the best learning almost always occurs in the absence of a teacher, for it is then that learners are free to pursue with great passion the questions that are meaningful and relevant to their own lives (p. 5). Wesch’s laissez faire approach to instruction suggests that he believes today’s youth have the capacity to answer their own questions and learn the skills they need based on their life experiences; teachers are merely facilitators of the learning space (and not the sources of knowledge). Here I am reminded of the work of William Ayers and his belief that “greatness in teaching engages students, interacts with them, draws energy and direction from them, and offers reasons to plunge into classroom life” (Ayers & Alexander-Tanner, 2010, p. 97). Simply put, the students drive the instruction. 

At the end of the day, once the dishes are cleared, I see Wesch and Turkle coming to a compromise: youth today require authentic connection. Although the path to fostering authentic connections may vary, the ultimate goal is to create a learning environment where youth can deepen their understanding of themselves, those around them, and the world at large.