My previous post seemed to ignite a small controversy over whether smart phones were the principal cause of the growing problem of students who seem unable/unwilling to learn and/or think/work hard.
That controversy illustrates a longstanding problem with human beings, what I’d call the reliance on single-factor analysis – the attribution of the cause of something to a single factor. Over the years, I’ve observed that most outcomes – good or bad – are based on more than one factor.
In the case of students, there are more factors in play than smart phones, including the parental background, the genetic background, the educational system, the local environment, and social media, just for starters.
Admittedly, smart phones enable social media and create isolation while amplifying the impact of negative social pressures (bullying) and increasing distractibility.
Then there’s the impact of an educational system which increasingly focuses on teaching to the test (usually multiple choice) rather than on analytical thought. Also, the use of computers has lessened reliance on memory-based mathematical skills, which has weakened the ability of many students to accurately estimate quantities, make change, or mentally project future trends with any degree of overall accuracy.
There’s also ever-increasing parental pressure on teachers not to criticize students for bad behavior or poor educational performance.
The increasing reliance of some parents on technology as a babysitter also reinforces the idea that everything, including education, should be entertaining and easy.
This tendency to limit causal factors goes beyond education. As a naval aviator, I came to realize that aircraft disasters almost always involved multiple factors, and that was the reason behind standardizing procedures based on experience, i.e., to limit contributing factors and thus reduce multiple-cause incidents or accidents.
The ATR 72 crash in Brazil last week is a good example. The ATR has a good overall safety record, but the aircraft has some weaknesses, as do many aircraft. Its de-icing equipment can be overloaded in extreme icing conditions, and this has led to at least several fatal crashes. The aircraft was also close to its load limit, according to early reports, because a number of passengers were denied boarding, even though the aircraft was certified to carry more passengers than were aboard.
The Brazilian pilots knowingly flew into extreme icing conditions with a fully-loaded aircraft, then went into a flat spin, and crashed. While the exact causes haven’t been firmly established, what we do know suggests that the pilot(s) were either unaware of the danger of icing with that aircraft or chose to proceed anyway and could not recover from what appeared from the video to be a stall/flat spin. Prior to the crash, there was no evidence that the pilots attempted to descend or otherwise avoid the icing conditions.
Obviously, multiple factors led to the crash, and that’s usually the case with most disasters, including students who cannot or will not learn.