文/Paul+Barnwell+譯/祝莉麗

Recently I stood in front of my class， observing an all-too-familiar scene. Most of my students were covertly—or so they thought—pecking1） away at their smartphones under their desks， checking their Facebook feeds and texts.

As I called their attention， students heads slowly lifted， their eyes reluctantly glancing forward. I then cheerfully explained that their next project would practice a skill they all desperately needed： holding a conversation.

Several students looked perplexed. Others fidgeted2） in their seats， waiting for me to stop watching the class so they could return to their phones. Finally， one student raised his hand. “How is this going to work？” he asked.

My junior English class had spent time researching different education issues. We had held whole-class discussions surrounding school reform issues and also practiced one-on-one discussions. Next， they would create podcasts in small groups， demonstrating their ability to communicate about the topics—the project represented a culminating assessment of their ability to speak about the issues in real time.

Even with plenty of practice， the task proved daunting to students. I watched trial runs of their podcasts frequently fall silent. Unless the student facilitator asked a question， most kids were unable to converse effectively. Instead of chiming in3） or following up on comments， they conducted rigid interviews. They shuffled papers and looked down at their hands. Some even reached for their phones—an automatic impulse and the last thing they should be doing.

As I watched my class struggle， I came to realize that conversational competence might be the single-most overlooked skill we fail to teach students. Kids spend hours each day engaging with ideas and one another through screens—but rarely do they have an opportunity to truly hone4） their interpersonal communication skills. Admittedly， teenage awkwardness and nerves5） play a role in difficult conversations. But students reliance on screens for communication is detracting6）—and distracting—from their engagement in real-time talk.

It might sound like a funny question， but we need to ask ourselves： Is there any 21st-century skill more important than being able to sustain confident， coherent conversation？

When students apply for colleges and jobs， they wont conduct interviews through their smartphones. When they negotiate pay raises and discuss projects with employers， they should exude7） a thoughtful presence8） and demonstrate the ability to think on their feet9） （or at least without Google）. When they face significant life decisions， they must be able to think things through and converse with their partners. If the majority of their conversations are based on fragments pin-balled back and forth through a screen， how will they develop the ability to truly communicate in person？

Its no surprise to any teacher or parent that teenagers rely heavily on cell phones for communication. According to the Pew Research Center10）， one in three teens sends over 100 text messages a day. More than half of teens use texting to communicate daily with friends， versus only 33 percent who regularly talk face to face. Cell phone use is rampant at most schools （mine included）， despite attempts to restrict or even integrate it into the curriculum.

But in our zealous rush to meet 21st-century demands—emailing assignments， customizing projects for tablets and laptops， and allowing students to BYOD （Bring Your Own Device）—we arent asking students to think and communicate in real time. Online discussion boards and Twitter are useful tools for exchanging ideas. But they often encourage a “read， reflect， forget about it” response that doesnt truly engage students in extended critical thinking or conversation. All too often Ive seen students simply post one （required） response to the prompt11） and then let the discussion go dead.

Sherry Turkle， a psychologist， MIT professor， and the author of Alone Together： Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Ourselves， has dedicated her career to researching peoples relationships with technology. Much of her writing has shaped my skepticism for tech-overload and its impact on conversation. In a New York Times column Turkle wrote， “Face-to-face conversation unfolds slowly. It teaches patience. When we communicate on our digital devices， we learn different habits … we start to expect faster answers. To get these， we ask one another simpler questions. We dumb down12） our communications， even on the most important matters.”

Could it be that the push for screen use in schools is watering down13） the questions and thinking we require of students？ For me， using classroom discussion boards has increased participation and given a voice to many students normally reluctant to speak in class. On the other hand， I wonder if my frequent reliance on digital participation is too easy on students. As Turkle writes， “We are tempted to think that our little ‘sips of online connection add up to a big gulp of real conversation. But they dont.”

Instead， what if we focused on sharpening students ability to move back and forth between the digital and real world？ An ironic benefit of technology is that we can leverage digital devices to capture and teach the art of conversation. All smartphones are recording devices； why not use those to record and assess students conversation skills？ Ive noticed that students take critical conversations， debates， and discussions more seriously when recorded. We can use technology to encourage students to strike a balance14） between digital literacies and interpersonal conversation.

The next time you interact with a teenager， try to have a conversation with him or her about a challenging topic. Ask him to explain his views. Push her to go further in her answers. Hopefully， you wont get the response Turkle did when interviewing a 16-year-old boy about how technology has impacted his communication： “Someday， someday， but certainly not now， Id like to learn how to have a conversation.”

前不久，我站在我上課的班級(jí)前面，觀察著一幕再熟悉不過(guò)的場(chǎng)景。我的學(xué)生們大多都偷偷摸摸地——或者說(shuō)他們是這樣認(rèn)為的——在課桌下不停地點(diǎn)滑著自己的智能手機(jī)，查看Facebook上推送的消息和手機(jī)短信。

在我提醒學(xué)生們注意時(shí)，他們慢慢地抬起頭，眼睛不情愿地向前瞥了一下。然后我興高采烈地解釋道，他們的下一個(gè)活動(dòng)是要練習(xí)一項(xiàng)他們都極為需要的技能：進(jìn)行交談。

有些學(xué)生看起來(lái)很困惑。其他人則在座位上坐立不安，等著我不再緊盯著全班，這樣他們就又可以看自己的手機(jī)了。終于，一名學(xué)生舉起了手。“這項(xiàng)活動(dòng)要如何開(kāi)展??？”他問(wèn)道。

我這門高三的英語(yǔ)課花時(shí)間研究過(guò)各種教育問(wèn)題。我們?cè)鴩@學(xué)校改革問(wèn)題進(jìn)行全班討論，也練習(xí)過(guò)一對(duì)一的討論。接下來(lái)，學(xué)生們將按小組創(chuàng)建播客，展現(xiàn)他們就各個(gè)話題進(jìn)行交流的能力——這項(xiàng)活動(dòng)將作為最終評(píng)估，以檢驗(yàn)學(xué)生實(shí)時(shí)談?wù)搯?wèn)題的能力。

即使學(xué)生們?cè)羞^(guò)大量的練習(xí)，到頭來(lái)卻證明，這項(xiàng)任務(wù)對(duì)學(xué)生來(lái)說(shuō)很艱巨。我觀察到，他們?cè)嚥サ牟タ统３Ｏ萑氤良?。除非?fù)責(zé)主持的學(xué)生提出一個(gè)問(wèn)題，否則大多數(shù)孩子都無(wú)法進(jìn)行有效的交談。他們不會(huì)加入談話或是跟著評(píng)論，而是在進(jìn)行刻板的訪談。他們胡亂翻著材料，低頭看著雙手。一些人甚至伸手去夠手機(jī)——一種不由自主的沖動(dòng)，也是他們最不應(yīng)該做的一件事。

就在我看著班里的學(xué)生費(fèi)勁掙扎時(shí)，我開(kāi)始意識(shí)到談話能力可能是我們最為忽視且沒(méi)能教會(huì)學(xué)生的一項(xiàng)技能。孩子們每天花上幾小時(shí)來(lái)通過(guò)屏幕琢磨各種想法，并與彼此溝通——但他們卻罕有機(jī)會(huì)去真正磨煉自己的人際交往能力。誠(chéng)然，青少年的羞澀和緊張也是造成談話困難的因素。但是學(xué)生們交流時(shí)對(duì)屏幕的依賴正在減少他們對(duì)實(shí)時(shí)談話的參與——并分散他們?cè)趯?shí)時(shí)談話中的注意力。

這個(gè)問(wèn)題也許聽(tīng)起來(lái)很好笑，但我們需要捫心自問(wèn)：在21世紀(jì)，還有比能持續(xù)自信且連貫的交談更重要的技能嗎？

當(dāng)學(xué)生們申請(qǐng)大學(xué)和找工作時(shí)，他們不會(huì)通過(guò)自己的智能手機(jī)進(jìn)行面試。當(dāng)他們與雇主商討加薪和討論項(xiàng)目時(shí)，他們應(yīng)該充分展現(xiàn)出自己見(jiàn)地獨(dú)到、思維敏捷的一面（或者至少不能使用谷歌）。當(dāng)他們面臨重大的人生抉擇時(shí)，他們必須能深思熟慮，并和自己的同伴進(jìn)行交流。如果他們的大部分談話都是基于屏幕上彈球一樣來(lái)來(lái)回回的只言片語(yǔ)，那他們面對(duì)面的實(shí)際溝通能力又怎么會(huì)得到提高呢？

對(duì)任何教師或家長(zhǎng)而言，青少年過(guò)于依賴手機(jī)進(jìn)行交流不足為奇。根據(jù)皮尤研究中心的調(diào)查，有三分之一的青少年每天要發(fā)送一百多條短信，有一半以上的青少年每天利用短信與朋友進(jìn)行交流。相比之下，只有33%的人經(jīng)常面對(duì)面地交談。在大多數(shù)學(xué)校（包括我所在的學(xué)校），使用手機(jī)的情況愈演愈烈，盡管學(xué)校曾嘗試限制使用手機(jī)，甚至要將其整合到課程中。

但是，在我們瘋狂地競(jìng)相滿足21世紀(jì)需求的過(guò)程中——用電子郵件布置作業(yè)，提供專屬于平板和筆記本電腦的項(xiàng)目，以及允許學(xué)生“自帶設(shè)備”（帶來(lái)自己的設(shè)備）——我們并沒(méi)有要求學(xué)生進(jìn)行實(shí)時(shí)的思考和溝通。網(wǎng)上討論區(qū)和推特是交流思想的有力工具。但它們通常鼓勵(lì)一種“閱讀，思考，遺忘”的反應(yīng)模式，這無(wú)法讓學(xué)生真正地參與到擴(kuò)展性的批判性思考或交談中去。有太多的時(shí)候我曾看到學(xué)生們僅就提示發(fā)布一條（必需的）回復(fù)，然后就讓討論陷入了僵局。

雪莉·特克是一名心理學(xué)家，也是麻省理工學(xué)院的教授，著有《孤獨(dú)相伴：我們?yōu)楹螌?duì)科技抱有更多期待而對(duì)自己期望較少》一書(shū)。在其職業(yè)生涯中，特克致力于研究人類和科技之間的關(guān)系。她的許多著述使我對(duì)過(guò)度科技化及其對(duì)交談的影響產(chǎn)生了懷疑態(tài)度。特克曾在《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》的專欄中寫(xiě)道：“面對(duì)面的交談是緩慢開(kāi)展的。它教會(huì)我們要有耐心。當(dāng)我們?cè)跀?shù)字設(shè)備上交流時(shí)，我們養(yǎng)成了不同的習(xí)慣……我們開(kāi)始期待更快的回答。為了得到這樣的回答，我們向彼此提出更簡(jiǎn)單的問(wèn)題。我們降低了交流的難度，甚至在最重要的問(wèn)題上也是如此?！?/p>

難道說(shuō)，學(xué)校推行使用電子設(shè)備的做法在削弱我們要求學(xué)生具備的質(zhì)疑和思考能力？就我而言，使用課堂討論區(qū)提高了學(xué)生的參與度，并為許多平時(shí)不愿在課上發(fā)言的學(xué)生提供了表達(dá)機(jī)會(huì)。而另一方面，我懷疑自己頻繁依賴數(shù)字參與，是不是對(duì)學(xué)生過(guò)于寬容了。正如特克所寫(xiě)的那樣：“我們傾向于認(rèn)為，網(wǎng)絡(luò)上的點(diǎn)滴聯(lián)系累積起來(lái)，會(huì)達(dá)到一大段真實(shí)對(duì)話的效果。但事實(shí)并非如此。”

相反，如果我們專注于提高學(xué)生們?cè)跀?shù)字世界和現(xiàn)實(shí)世界中來(lái)回轉(zhuǎn)換的能力，又會(huì)怎樣呢？科技具有諷刺意味的一個(gè)益處就在于，我們可以利用數(shù)字設(shè)備來(lái)獲得和傳授談話的藝術(shù)。所有的智能手機(jī)都具備錄音功能，為什么不利用它們來(lái)記錄和評(píng)估學(xué)生們的談話技巧呢？我已經(jīng)注意到，在給學(xué)生們錄音時(shí)，他們會(huì)更加認(rèn)真地進(jìn)行批判性的對(duì)話、辯論和探討。我們可以運(yùn)用科技去鼓勵(lì)學(xué)生在數(shù)字素養(yǎng)和人際溝通能力之間找到平衡。

下次你再和某個(gè)青少年互動(dòng)時(shí)，試著就某個(gè)具有挑戰(zhàn)性的話題與他/她進(jìn)行交談。請(qǐng)他闡釋自己的觀點(diǎn)。促使她進(jìn)一步深化自己的看法。但愿你不會(huì)得到特克在采訪一位16歲男孩時(shí)所得到的回應(yīng)。當(dāng)被問(wèn)及科技對(duì)他的溝通能力有何影響時(shí)，那個(gè)男孩說(shuō)：“總有一天，總有一天，但肯定不是現(xiàn)在，我愿意去學(xué)習(xí)如何進(jìn)行交談。”

1. peck [pek] vi. 斷斷續(xù)續(xù)地做；一小點(diǎn)一小點(diǎn)地做

2. fidget [?f?d??t] vi. 坐立不安；煩躁

3. chime in：緊接著說(shuō)；插話（表示贊成）

4. hone [h??n] vt. 磨煉（技能）

5. nerves [n??（r）vz] n. [復(fù)]神經(jīng)緊張；情緒不安

6. detract [d??tr?kt] vi. 減損

7. exude [?ɡ?zju?d] vt. 充分顯露

8. presence [?prez（?）ns] n. 風(fēng)度；風(fēng)采；儀態(tài)

9. think on ones feet：思維敏捷；能隨機(jī)應(yīng)變

10. Pew Research Center：皮尤研究中心，美國(guó)著名的獨(dú)立民意調(diào)查機(jī)構(gòu)

11. prompt [pr?mpt] n. 提示；提詞

12. dumb down：降低……的難度；使……變得更簡(jiǎn)單、更易于理解

13. water down：削弱，減少……的力量；使打折扣

14. strike a balance：（在爭(zhēng)論中）找到折中辦法，求得平衡