Running head: POSTMAN PAPER 1

Postman Paper

Mary Forgione

Loyola University Maryland

ET690
POSTMAN PAPER 2

Abstract

The late author and university professor, Neil Postman, believed in the power of

questioning everything. He shared a keen sense of how individuals’ different gods/narratives affect

education throughout his book, The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. The ten-

part quote that he shared at the end of this text revealed an overview of his beliefs regarding the

implementation of new technologies. The intention of this paper is to bring meaning to the key

aspects of his ten-part quote, use these key aspects to create a framework for understanding

technology and technology in education, and explore how these implications have application in

school settings.

Searching for Meaning

In analyzing the meaning of Postman’s quote, several ideas prove to be most prevalent.

The repeated terms “different”, “biases”, and “change” shed light on Postman’s cautious beliefs

about technology. In order to make sense of Neil Postman’s idea as a framework for understanding

technology, it is important to understand exactly what he believed. In the mentioned quote,

Postman shared his belief that technology will never be equitable, that it is unable to be free from

bias, and that it has the power to constantly change our world.

As individuals immersed in the human experience, we can all agree that life is not always

fair. Just as life is not equitable, Postman understood that technology provides advantages to some

and detriment to others (Postman, 1995). This concept should be common sense to us since we all

acknowledge that we were all born into different life situations that were out of our control. Due

to this aspect of life, a clear divide between income and accessibility is evident (Postman, 1995).

A single mother working two jobs is less likely to be able to buy her child a computer in

comparison to a woman born into the upper class. It is important for technology users to foresee
POSTMAN PAPER 3

accessibility, financial, and knowledge gaps when analyzing technology. Knowing that

technology will never be equitable should lead people to ask questions about new technologies.

Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? Who may be harmed by this technology? Is this a

technology that speaks to and for multiple narratives? By asking these questions, we can analyze

and assess the roles of technology and ultimately decide which ones are worth our time. Postman

asked that we “become more interested in asking questions about the computer than in getting

answers from it” (Postman, 1995, p. 44). When we use questions and learn to distinguish the

beneficial technologies from the majorly harmful ones, we show that we are willing to put forth

the effort to acknowledge and change this inequality. Biases in technology are also important for

users to consider.

Neil Postman believed that technologies embody different biases. As mentioned

previously, each individual answers to their own gods/narratives. These powers/forces that drive

us and give our existence meaning carry innate biases. Instead of being instantly enamored by new

technology, it is vital to take a step back and question its intentions. Was this technology created

to bring peoples’ narratives together or to cause a greater divide? In regards to narratives, Postman

argued that, “What we must aim for is to provide every group’s narrative with dignity; with a sense

that it is a creative means of expressing mysteries of life…” (Postman, 1995, p. 153). Technologies

that explicitly or inexplicitly separate us through biases only have power if we are too careless to

recognize the divergence. We can learn about biases from the questions that we ask and the time

that we put into learning how to bridge and navigate our differences. Technology has the power to

change our world, but so do we.

Postman knew that technology will always have the power to alter our world. The powerful

ideas behind new technologies can easy appeal to our narratives, thus making some of them
POSTMAN PAPER 4

irresistible. However, he cautioned us to be aware of potential false gods and to question if new

technologies are changing the world for better or for worse (Postman, 1995). We are encouraged

to become critical consumers of technology and of the information surrounding technology.

Postman added, “Questions, we might say, are the principal intellectual instruments available to

human beings” (Postman, 1995, p. 173). Technology will always change and evolve, and our

questions to counter these new technologies should as well. There will always be the next best

thing in technology, and it is our duty to question it in an attempt to bridge understanding and

respect among all narratives. Postman concluded that we must work to create a comprehensive

narrative that constructs inclusive diversity (Postman, 1995). Technology has the power to bring

narratives together, but first we must provide ourselves with the truth of technology. Seeking out

answers from people that have different perspectives and opinions will allow new gods to replace

old gods, just as new technologies replace old technologies.

Technology in Education

In the analysis of Neil Postman’s quote, it has been determined that he believed technology

to be inequitable, biased, and always changing our world. By bringing the inequalities of

technology to light, educators can encourage their students to learn about technology itself, not

just use it. Postman believed technology to be a Faustian bargain. This means that it is important

for educators to know that they have the power to analyze the patterns of how technology gives

and takes, whether that be in an equal or non-equal way (Postman, 1995, p. 41). When we teach

our students to take a step back from an initial captivation with a new technology, and question its

intentions, we tiptoe towards embracing technologies that benefits more people, and rejecting

those that do not. Postman added, “We experiment to make things better, and we argue about what

experiments are worthwhile and whether or not those we try are any good” (Postman, 1995, p.
POSTMAN PAPER 5

142). School is an excellent place to experiment and debate, and an even better place to work to

make life better for everyone. Conclusions drawn from well-educated and researched arguments

benefit many and raise a necessary awareness of inequitable technologies. More questions will

continue to arise, thus leading to a greater understanding of technology and of the world. Postman

noted “…that the purpose of public education is to help the young transcend individual identity by

finding inspiration in a story of humanity” (Postman, 1995, p. 191). Postman believed that school

is an ideal place to make this proposed change happen because of the many different life-

experiences, perceptions, and preconceived notions that already exist in each student. Many

students wish to obtain meaning and understanding in something greater than themselves. As

students make sense of themselves, they make sense of world and how different technologies have

the profound power to affect different populations. Teaching the history of technology is another

way bring students’ thoughts and ideas together.

If students aren’t taught about the history of technology in school, they’ll never be able to

see past their own narratives in order to create a shared narrative. Everyone possesses perceptions

and biases that need to be challenged. Just as we wish our students to learn of the inequalities of

technologies, we should also wish for them to be informed about its many hidden biases. Educators

do not have control over students’ home lives, but what they do have control over is occupying

student’s learning time with inquiries that allow them to see for themselves how facts and truths

may have changed over time (Postman, 1995, p. 127). Debunking and analyzing the histories of

known truths in an educational setting can encourage others to see past their individual biases.

Postman (1995) added, “Technology education aims at students’ learning about what technology

helps us to do and what it hinders us from doing; it is about how technology uses us, for good or

ill, and about how it has used people in the past for good or ill. It is about how technology creates
POSTMAN PAPER 6

new worlds, for good or ill” (Postman, 1995, p. 192). Without the opportunity to dive into the roots

of technology, the history of its potentially unfair biases will continue to repeat. As educators, we

need to see that too many aspects of technology go undiscovered and undiscussed in the place

where students are supposed to be learning about our world. Postman believed that school should

not be a place of simply drawing attention to error, but instead for revealing the truths of our world

(Postman, 1995, p. 118). When schools begin working to understand, discuss, and debate the biases

in technology, the world as it truly is will begin to reveal itself.

In education, technology will always change, just as best teaching practices change.

Change is a natural part of life, though most of us find it to be uncomfortable. Technology in the

classroom has changed rapidly as we have learned about it, implemented it, and experimented with

it. The more we have learned about technology, the more comfortable with it we have become,

although we know it will never stop changing. Postman said, “To build a house is a fine and noble

thing, but to keep it from crumbling is the essential task of civilization” (Postman, 1995, p. 101).

We work to find and establish appropriate technologies in our classrooms, however, we need to

ask ourselves what we are doing to keep up with technology’s constant changes. Are we holding

onto old technology because it is easier for us? Do we inform ourselves about the new technologies

that are available to us in our respective counties? Postman encouraged that these questions be

asked as a way to progress technology in education towards positive and rewarding changes. He

added, “If students were occupied with such inquiries, they would inevitably discover the extent

to which facts and truth have changed, depending upon the circumstances in which the facts were

described and the truths formulated” (Postman, 1995, p. 127). Just as learning is a life-long process

of change, determining worthwhile technology is too. Growing away from technologies that are

not working is just as important.

POSTMAN PAPER 7

Application in School Settings

The framework that has been developed throughout this paper is based on Postman’s ideas

and the conclusions that I have drawn from his book. The power of questioning, analyzing

technology’s patterns and histories, and pushing for propitious change is part of a framework that

has meaningful application in modern schools.

Smartboards are a current technology that are seen in many Howard County schools. In

utilizing the created framework, an educator should detach from a technology in order to question

its intentions. What is the purpose of a Smartboard? Do my students benefit from the way that I

use my Smartboard? How would I know if Smartboard instruction impact learning? By asking

these questions, teachers can determine the role that a Smartboard plays in their classroom. To add

an important layer of diversity to this questioning, teachers should include their students. Students

should be asked what they think and how they feel about the Smartboard. It may become entirely

evident that the majority of the students dislike it, and that the teacher was completely unaware.

These questions can then lead to more questions. In what ways could the Smartboard be more

engaging to students? What are the patterns among the students that like using the Smartboard

versus the students that do not? Postman believed, “…the value of a question is determined not

only by the specificity and richness of the answers it produces but also by the quantity and quality

of the new questions it raises” (Postman, 1995, p. 187). As the questions get deeper and deeper,

more specific and authentic insight is gained. All involved benefit from listening to one another

and gain a necessary insight into each others’ mindsets.

In taking the time to analyze the Smartboard’s history, its authenticity in the classroom

becomes open for discussion. Who created Smartboards and why? Are they more or less beneficial

than previously used overhead projectors? What evidence proves your opinion? Questioning and
POSTMAN PAPER 8

diving into the roots of Smartboards fosters a productive skepticism in learners. It is not healthy

for students to believe everything that they hear, especially if that knowledge is coming from a

single source. In taking the time to research, discuss reliable information and draw conclusions,

students gain a greater sense of the full scope of Smartboards. While the whole truth will never be

known, student’s education is enriched by having their inquisitive nature and communication skills

fostered. Looking into the past of Smartboards can also forge a discussion towards the future of

“SMART” technology. In researching Smartboards, students may learn that there are no adaptive

qualities that take disabilities, multiple intelligences, or different learning styles into account. If

this were to be the case, students and teachers should draw the conclusion that Smartboards are

not the best technology for inclusivity. A change in the classroom would be made, and the

Smartboard may never be used again. Understanding the past of related technologies in schools,

combined with student’s knowledge, can lead to a future that is positive for all learners.

The push for positive change can be achieved as students dedicate themselves to sharing

and listening to each other. As new gods and narratives that promote the unity of worldwide views

are created, technology can be used to communicate what is working as well as what is not. One

school may have an idea regarding the god of Smartboards, whereas, another school may have a

completing different perspective on the god of Smartboards. Since technology is not equitable,

some classrooms do not have the opportunity to connect with other classrooms. This inability for

some classrooms to communicate their technology knowledge with others is something that needs

to change as well. Connecting classrooms together to join in the conversation of technology is a

great way to continually add new perspectives. As new narratives come together, more people feel

heard and accounted for. Productive change will come as more people are informed and involved.
POSTMAN PAPER 9

YouTube is a vast technology that continues to make its way deeper into schools. Teachers

and students need to be mindful of their YouTube use in order to avoid blindly using videos in a

substitutive manner. It is an easy trap to fall in considering YouTube videos are convenient,

predictable, and visually engaging. In following my proposed framework, questioning the use of

YouTube videos is essential in determining its relevance and value in the classroom. Has the

information in the video been fact-checked? Who created the video and for what purpose? Could

this video be spreading false information unbeknownst to the viewers? A simple way to bring

learners of all ages into this conversation could be as simple as asking their opinions of the video.

When students have the opportunity to share what they liked or did not like about something, more

questions are sparked. When more questions are sparked, greater understanding is developed.

Students not only have the chance to talk about the content, but learn about each other as

individuals in the process.

The history of receiving information in a video-form is worth exploring. Before YouTube,

videos were only available as VHS tapes, and later on as DVDs. Prior to hard copies of videos,

television was the only source of digital media. In the past, something was played once on

television and then never seen again. How did the transition from one-time-view media to multi-

view media affect the quality of the presented content? This question regarding the history of video

is necessary for learners to understand. By analyzing and assessing videos from the past, students

can begin to understand which qualities have remained the same and which qualities of video have

changed. This information can be used to predict possible future technologies as well. We want

our learners to be innovative, but in order to do so, they need to see the full picture.

In specifically researching YouTube, students may be able to find statistical information

regarding the views of educational videos versus the views of videos used purely for entertainment.
POSTMAN PAPER 10

This research then provides insight into if YouTube holds a particular bias towards amplifying

enjoyment or enriching knowledge. Postman believed, “…the classroom is intended to tame the

ego, to connect the individual with others, to demonstrate the value and necessity of group

cohesion” (Postman, 1995, p. 45). Engaging students in purposeful research and discussion

nurtures all of those aspects in which Postman stated. Students learn to respect ideas that differ

from their own, learn to work collaboratively and cooperatively, and learn how to be part of a

group working towards a shared goal. Gaining a greater sense of the world and obtaining respect

and understanding for different narratives is a goal worth striving for.

Anyone can make a YouTube video. For this reason, accessible videos can exude love and

tolerance, but can also promote racism or hate. What can students do to push for a positive change?

In asking and answering questions and delving into YouTube’s use and history, pros and cons can

be created. This concept applies to classrooms but can also easily extend to outside of the

classroom. Teachers can take researched and debated information and change their practice of

using YouTube to better suite the needs of their students. Maybe instead of watching a video,

students would benefit more from hearing human fluency and expression as their teacher reads to

them. Maybe the videos that had been shown in the past neglected to portray humans with different

external difference. These small actions and steps make a big difference in the classroom. On a

worldly scale, determining pros and cons can promote more visibility of marginalized groups. Are

students around the world seeing people that look and behave differently than them through digital

media? If the answer to this question is no, our next question should be framed around what we

can do to utilize YouTube to promote inclusivity. We cannot expect others to understand the many

different people in the world if they are never exposed to true diversity.
POSTMAN PAPER 11

Closing

Technology is far from perfect. As we continue to learn about technology on a deeper level,

and encourage our students to do the same, we can work to ensure that our god of Technology

takes diversity and humanity into account. We have the power to use technology for good.

Teaching our students to ask questions, to be quick to listen, and to be slow to judge will progress

technology in a direction that lessens bias. I think we’d all like to live in a world in which

technology brings people together, rather than one that tears people apart.
POSTMAN PAPER 12

References

Postman, N. (1995). The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. New York: Alfred

A. Knopf.