When we integrate technology
into the curriculum, we have a terrific chance to reverse a terrible
trend. In The Stigma of Genius, the authors say,
Descartes,
Newton, and Bacon laid a foundation that allowed science and technology [emphasis
mine] to transform the world. Commerce increased, nationalism grew, and
Europeans could conquer other civilizations at a rate previous unimagined. The
rise of modernistic science was closely followed by a decline in the importance
of religion and spirituality. . . Rationality became a new deity. . .
Every
part of the universe was quantitative; thus, the goal of science and education
was to develop more precise systems of measurement and to commit the results of
such measurement to the mind of the learner. . .
Modernist
schools emphasize quantities, distance, and location, not qualities,
relationships, or context. . .
[Teaching
and testing focus on] “correct” answers to questions involving names, dates,
and places (and even reasons for events as specified by the teacher or the text),
answers that are unambiguous and that lend themselves to precise measurement.
True or false, fill in the blanks, multiple choice, and matching tests are all
grounded in Newtonian-Cartesian cause and effect linearity, for all sets of
given conditions there is only one correct final state, one right answer.
Joe
L. Kincheloe, Shirley R. Steinberg, & Deborah J. Tippins, The Stigma of Genius: Einstein, Consciousness, & Education. Lang, 1999, pp. 15-17.
Perhaps we have all
experienced “technology” in programmed learning that proceeds from the
objective-reality, “modernist” construction of reality. Today we have the challenge and
opportunity to change that enacted meaning of technology and the perverse
effects of it. We don’t have to
impose that bias when we bring in technology today, but the danger
persists. Kincheloe and colleagues
explain one reason why: “Because we are not educated to think in terms of
exposing the tacit assumptions in our practices and conventions, many teachers
are oblivious to the fact that they are propagating a specific ideology when
they design their tests and teach their classes” (p. 16). If we want our infusion of technology
to be liberating instead of constrictive and in service to a dominating ideology, we must actively
inquire into our experience of media and make it participatory, not unconscious, not robotic. If we want to build a collaborative enterprise in the
capacity of the Web 2.0 paradigm, we must enter courageously into the Challenges
of Participatory Learning so that the crucial values are enacted into
their deep potential instead of being castigated so that behaviorist
and ethnocentric agenda can be perpetuated.
Jenkins
and others challenge us to reclaim our birthright as educators in providing our
children with the best legacy of public education that is increasingly
accessible when we optimize the potential of today’s technology. These values include: play, performance, multitasking,
distributed cognition, collective intelligence, judgment, transmedia
navigation, networking, and negotiation. (p. 4-)
Let’s insist that our
accountability measures keep us in alignment with these qualities that we owe to instill in our children.
Henry Jenkins, etal. Confronting the Challenges of Participatory
Learning: Media Education for the 21st Century. MacArthur
Foundation, 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment