For as long as I can recall, everybody has always been complaining about the falling educational standards. Up until the 1990s, all teachers up to and including the university level taught the old-fashioned way: rare exceptions used hand-drawn transparencies, but chalk-and-board was the norm. The general consensus amongst the students was that the teachers left much to be desired when it came to hard work, fairness and imaginative teaching. The instructors, in turn, had equally unfavourable views of the average student, whom they accused of being lazy, slow and unmotivated.
By the start of the new millennium, PowerPoint slides and overhead projectors had all but taken over classrooms the world over. The internet was still a far cry from what it was about to become, but it had come a very long way from the limited collection of mainly static pages at the time of its inception. Teaching material, which, till only a few years ago could only be accessed by buying (or borrowing) hard copies, was now available in the form of PDF files, which were infinitely easier to borrow or steal. But did all this technology raise the general educational standard any? Apparently not, because everybody continued complaining about the sorry state of education.
By 2010, YouTube and OCWs had been so developed that there was no subject under the sun that somebody or the other was not hell bent on teaching free of cost. In fact, in most cases it was an embarrassment of riches because there were more options available than anybody knew what to do about. The choice ranged from the very basic stuff to advanced levels and everything in-between, from short to long videos, and from one-off lectures to multiple-part playlists. One was free to consume at a go as much as one wanted, and (even more conveniently) when one wanted. Not only was this convenience unprecedented, but nobody had imagined anything like it before it suddenly became a reality. Unfortunately, this easy access to free learning material also failed to meet the expectations in terms of results. Everybody still kept complaining. The more things had changed, the more they seemed to have remained the same. In fact, not a few argued that matters had gone from bad to worse.
Technology was not quite done yet, for the next educational ‘revolution’ was just around the corner. The last five years have seen Artificial Intelligence, especially Generative AI, really coming into its own. This technology is available to everybody. Now everything is only a good prompt away. Any remnants of obstacles in the way of learning are a thing of the past, or so it seems. Learning has never been as easy as it is today. But the parents and the teachers are still not happy with the general state of education. And students continue finding it hard to excel in their studies. Of course, there are those who make the most of any new technology that comes their way. They have always been there. Like always, they represent a small minority today.
For all one knows, the ‘next big thing’ in education could make its appearance tomorrow. If the past is any indicator however, it would probably be wise not to expect too much from it in terms of transforming the educational landscape. That said, it is neither wise, nor in fact possible, to resist technology. Each generation must make the best use of the technology available to it. But it is very easy to lose sight of the fact that new technologies offer nothing more than new tools. Now, the thing with tools is that they work both ways. Each new tool (no matter how useful) inevitably brings its own set of problems as well. A cell phone places terabytes of information at one’s fingertips, but it is also the gateway to more forms of distractions than one cares to count. GenAI offers great promise when it comes to eliminating the more tedious and mechanical tasks from education, but it is equally tempting for the user to utilize it as a black box without knowing what he is doing. So, while education (like anything else) cannot and should not be divorced from technology in any given age, it is important to realize that in the final analysis it is the human being that learns (or fails to do so). No technological revolution is ever going to change that.
Sustained motivation, being intimately linked with continuity of purpose, is a subject that demands much more than the few words for which we have space left. Suffice it to say here that it is rarely achieved by those who are content to learn passively. Being creative– that is, continually and proactively applying to real or imaginary scenarios whatever is being learned– is probably how motivation is most reliably sustained.
Professor Asimov was spot on when he said that self-education is the only type of education there is. Because after all is said and done, it is the student teaching himself that really counts. All the rest of the ingredients, some of which are no doubt of immense value, are replaceable. Which is not to say that teachers do not have a role to play here. They have; and a big one at that. They make a world of difference by making the subject interesting for their students. (At the very least, they can ensure that they do not make it boring or any more difficult than it needs to be.) They contribute significantly by making sure that the beginner does not take up too much of the subject matter too soon, and by cheering him on when he does well. But the point is this: Not even the best of the teachers can teach somebody who cannot keep himself motivated enough.
Sustained motivation, being intimately linked with continuity of purpose, is a subject that demands much more than the few words for which we have space left. Suffice it to say here that it is rarely achieved by those who are content to learn passively. Being creative– that is, continually and proactively applying to real or imaginary scenarios whatever is being learned– is probably how motivation is most reliably sustained.
