Hi...
This is the last one... the end (le fin - I like to mess with language).
It has been an interesting and challenging journey. McLaren, McGarrigle sisters, Plato, Grierson, Maddin, Heidegger, Murrow; truth, process, product, literacy, relativism, determinism, responsible use, filtering, plagiarism; constructivism, standards, e-learning, globalism, scary stats; Jap Zero, behaviourism, culture. No I have not said it all, but that's still quite a list.
Back in January, Denis posed to us three critical questions for this course:
1. How does educational technology enlarge, focus and constrain our understanding of the world?
2. How do new media reshape knowledge, alter how it is represented, presented, and comprehended?
3. What will this do to teaching and learning in the 21st century?
I think a summary answer to all three of those questions is in saying that technology is likened to a process, a cultural paradigm that keeps changing as new ideas emerge and subsequently with them new tools and the direction of society. Individually, the answers can be simple or complex. I'll offer a few simple answers.
In response to the first question, technology enlarges by affording us greater abilities to perform work and communicate. The internet and cell phones are examples of technologies that have enlarged everyone's world. Technology focuses by asking us to be specific about how we get things done, but at the same time constrains the way we must do them. Nothing like having your choice not show up on a multiple choice survey. In the classroom, that isn't any fun for students, and in the general society, people can be cut off from being full citizens. Some people really can't afford to have the necessary gadgets to be full social participants at the technical level.
To answer the second question, I'll use one name: Maddin. You can fill in the rest.
Third, the 21st century. We've just begun. The Thwarted Innovation paper may cite failure, but since its publishing there has been a lot of success. The next generation of teachers will be able to integrate technology into educational practice in ways that some of today's teachers may never ever imagine. I think the learning object will play a key role in this century's teaching and learning.
The readings assigned in this course pushed us to consider both the pros and cons of technology. I loved reading Oppenheimer and Winner as much as Heidegger. Cuban is rock solid, and Plato is in a class by himself. The standards documents and their military tone could put anyone on the defensive, but they do call us to explore a better way to get the job done.
Murrow's speech really underscored the point that we must have no illusions about technology and the power of media to shape social behaviour. We must use technology responsibly or potentially perish at its hand, which really would be by our carelessness.
What else should I say? I think I said enough in my previous posts and comments, and I am aware that sometimes I rode the same train. Denis's articles from the journal Educational Technology brought many ideas together and were great reads. For me, this course was mostly about technology as culture and how tools can be used both responsibly (which includes creatively and well) and not. I like playing with philosophy, which I think was clear. At a very fundamental level, I think that I think like a physicist; I am looking for the god particle. All that aside, when it comes to educational technology, if something (ethical) might work to get students to learn, I'm willing to give it a try.
Thanks to you all, and Denis, of course, who is a source of much wisdom. It's been a pleasure and privilege. In parting, I'll leave you with two TEDs. If you've seen them, great, if not, enjoy! For the second one, you may consider what I said in my first post about a student being a technology.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Class 13: April 8, 2010
Frankenstein Lives!
A being in the likeness of man, Frankenstein's creation (see Wikipedia's Frankenstein entry). Technology, a creation of man in his own image. Narcissus saw his own reflection in the water but didn't know it was his. And we, we see technology all around us but don't realize that we are looking in the mirror.
It was an outstanding experience, this class. Thanks to all, especially to our guide to the educational technology universe, Dr. Denis Hlynka.
I have a curling bonspiel this weekend, so the rest of this, and another summary, won't be up before the beginning of next week. And three cheers for Mikeold who got his post up before me tonight!!
April 14
It’s been quite a packed week, so I have yet to read any posts other than Paul's well wish comment for the bonspiel. We won first in the third event. During the weekend my wallet fell out of my pocket onto the ice and, this is a bizarre one, when sweeping, my gum fell out of my mouth, right in front of a decently moving rock. The rock was carried off the ice a meter or so later. Never before had either of those things happened, so, it was an enriching weekend!
Back to educational technology. Julye represented Cuban well. I think she captured the thesis of the book, at least based on what I had read. Like Denis said, that book is a reference must if one wants to do justice to a complete argument about the whys and wherefores of technology in education. It was also another great round of TEDs.
I agree with Roman’s statement about kids learning like professionals, yet I need to say that professionals have already learned how to learn. Once kids have learned how to learn, it’s a lot easier for them to learn like professionals do. Julye’s history of cell phones was another reminder of how many technological changes have taken place during the last thirty years. I remember when cell phones were the size of a shoe (one was also a Smart phone... it used to dial 99 by itself – see the Wikipedia "Get Smart" entry and scroll down a bit). Roland reminded us about how savvy we must be to be able to protect ourselves on-line and excellently applied McLuhan’s Laws of Media. His examples were spot on. Thanks to James for giving us more sites. Etherpad, Xtranormal and Flexbook are all tools that were new to me and that I will bring into my practice. Lastly, Ben’s treatise on the pencil capped the course by, as McLuhan or Hlynka might put it, returning to the past to make meaning of the present. Isn’t that what Denis said we’d do this term, look back to the past so we could better see the now and beyond? Comparing the pencil to the computer was a great way to conclude and come full circle.
The point Denis made at the end of class about deconstruction is, in my view, critical to learning. We must deconstruct when problem solving or making meaning of anything. What is/was the reality/phenomenon? Where and when is/was it occurring? Why is/was it? Who is/was involved? How does/did it manifest? We teach deconstruction daily when we explain necessities to our students, and, we must. The person who does not deconstruct really has not learned to think, and therefore, to borrow from Descartes, is like those bound in Plato’s cave (I think, therefore, I am ~ I am not, therefore, I think not).
I will finish this post by expanding on the first paragraph. The idea of technology being our reflection comes from McLuhan. McLuhan might say that technology has brought us to a state of numbness, the meaning of narcosis, from which Narcissus is derived. I have just begun to read the critical edition of McLuhan’s book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (1964). In the book there is a chapter titled The Gadget Lover: Narcissus as Narcosis. The expression gadet lover may have caused you to think of our culture of today – it’s a gadget world, and we love our gadgets, which really can be understood as extensions of ourselves, our abilities. They give us control, but how do they numb us? The book talks about autoamputation/self-amputation, a defense we employ when we can’t find the source of an irritant in our lives (we seek to control irritants). What ends up happening is that the more we seek to remove the irritants from our lives, the more we self-amputate, and hence the more we do not recognize ourselves – we become numb to who we are. It really is a fascinating idea. Thinking back to Heidegger, as the paper progresses, we are discussed as changing from a feeling and poetic type of being to a hardened, demanding and calculating machine. Machines are numb. I won’t get into it all here, just refer you to the book. The last thing I’ll share from the book (p67) is, believe it or not, a biblical psalm (the book says 113, but I have it as 115):
I agree with Denis when he says technology is culture. Our culture is techno, and we need to be careful to not let technology be the end in the means-end relationship. Technology is for our use, and as I’ve said before, we need to be able to move on without it. We can’t become so dependent on it that we become unable to use our senses to survive.
I’ll plan to put up one more post to summarize my blogs in the context of the course questions.
A being in the likeness of man, Frankenstein's creation (see Wikipedia's Frankenstein entry). Technology, a creation of man in his own image. Narcissus saw his own reflection in the water but didn't know it was his. And we, we see technology all around us but don't realize that we are looking in the mirror.
It was an outstanding experience, this class. Thanks to all, especially to our guide to the educational technology universe, Dr. Denis Hlynka.
I have a curling bonspiel this weekend, so the rest of this, and another summary, won't be up before the beginning of next week. And three cheers for Mikeold who got his post up before me tonight!!
April 14
It’s been quite a packed week, so I have yet to read any posts other than Paul's well wish comment for the bonspiel. We won first in the third event. During the weekend my wallet fell out of my pocket onto the ice and, this is a bizarre one, when sweeping, my gum fell out of my mouth, right in front of a decently moving rock. The rock was carried off the ice a meter or so later. Never before had either of those things happened, so, it was an enriching weekend!
Back to educational technology. Julye represented Cuban well. I think she captured the thesis of the book, at least based on what I had read. Like Denis said, that book is a reference must if one wants to do justice to a complete argument about the whys and wherefores of technology in education. It was also another great round of TEDs.
I agree with Roman’s statement about kids learning like professionals, yet I need to say that professionals have already learned how to learn. Once kids have learned how to learn, it’s a lot easier for them to learn like professionals do. Julye’s history of cell phones was another reminder of how many technological changes have taken place during the last thirty years. I remember when cell phones were the size of a shoe (one was also a Smart phone... it used to dial 99 by itself – see the Wikipedia "Get Smart" entry and scroll down a bit). Roland reminded us about how savvy we must be to be able to protect ourselves on-line and excellently applied McLuhan’s Laws of Media. His examples were spot on. Thanks to James for giving us more sites. Etherpad, Xtranormal and Flexbook are all tools that were new to me and that I will bring into my practice. Lastly, Ben’s treatise on the pencil capped the course by, as McLuhan or Hlynka might put it, returning to the past to make meaning of the present. Isn’t that what Denis said we’d do this term, look back to the past so we could better see the now and beyond? Comparing the pencil to the computer was a great way to conclude and come full circle.
The point Denis made at the end of class about deconstruction is, in my view, critical to learning. We must deconstruct when problem solving or making meaning of anything. What is/was the reality/phenomenon? Where and when is/was it occurring? Why is/was it? Who is/was involved? How does/did it manifest? We teach deconstruction daily when we explain necessities to our students, and, we must. The person who does not deconstruct really has not learned to think, and therefore, to borrow from Descartes, is like those bound in Plato’s cave (I think, therefore, I am ~ I am not, therefore, I think not).
I will finish this post by expanding on the first paragraph. The idea of technology being our reflection comes from McLuhan. McLuhan might say that technology has brought us to a state of numbness, the meaning of narcosis, from which Narcissus is derived. I have just begun to read the critical edition of McLuhan’s book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (1964). In the book there is a chapter titled The Gadget Lover: Narcissus as Narcosis. The expression gadet lover may have caused you to think of our culture of today – it’s a gadget world, and we love our gadgets, which really can be understood as extensions of ourselves, our abilities. They give us control, but how do they numb us? The book talks about autoamputation/self-amputation, a defense we employ when we can’t find the source of an irritant in our lives (we seek to control irritants). What ends up happening is that the more we seek to remove the irritants from our lives, the more we self-amputate, and hence the more we do not recognize ourselves – we become numb to who we are. It really is a fascinating idea. Thinking back to Heidegger, as the paper progresses, we are discussed as changing from a feeling and poetic type of being to a hardened, demanding and calculating machine. Machines are numb. I won’t get into it all here, just refer you to the book. The last thing I’ll share from the book (p67) is, believe it or not, a biblical psalm (the book says 113, but I have it as 115):
Their idols are silver and gold,Does this psalm point to our use of technology, that by using it, we become like it, that it conforms us to it? The book says that. “They that make them shall be like unto them.” Consider the saying, “we shape our tools and our tools shape us.” If that be true, we are operating in what the book calls a closed system, in the same way Narcissus may have kept on going back to the water. Looking at himself numbed him to anything else; our use of technology can be both blinding and deafening, and help us more and more to self-amputate. Has our culture become one of idolatry? Do we worship the god of technology? In education, are standards to be upheld before the personal well being of those in our charge? Is there any living poetry left in our classrooms (and not just in language class)? There's just too much to say about this here.
The works of men’s hands.
They have mouths, but they speak not;
Eyes they have, but they see not;
They have ears, but hear not;
Noses they have, but they smell not;
They have hands, but they handle not;
Feet they have, but they walk not;
Neither speak they through their throat.
They that make them shall be like unto them;
Yea, every one that trusteth in them.
I agree with Denis when he says technology is culture. Our culture is techno, and we need to be careful to not let technology be the end in the means-end relationship. Technology is for our use, and as I’ve said before, we need to be able to move on without it. We can’t become so dependent on it that we become unable to use our senses to survive.
I’ll plan to put up one more post to summarize my blogs in the context of the course questions.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
No Class 12.5: April 1, 2010
The VPN Culture?
The article by Manuel Castells (year 2000) that I referenced in the last entry, Toward a Sociology of the Network Society, and some of Denis’s works have been in my sights during the last few days, along with last week’s TEDs.
Let me begin here by again quoting the Castells paper: “I [Castells] understand technology... as material culture – that is, as a socially embedded process, not as an exogenous factor affecting society.” Sounds familiar. Technology as a process? Our tools shaping us? This is getting old already. Yet, if it is a central idea recognized universally by leading thinkers of our time, then it must be proverbial in nature. “We shape our tools, then our tools shape us” (Marshall McLuhan). Castells defined in the paper a new type of society that depends on information technology and electronic hypertext, is global in scope, but sheds independent sovereignties – the nation state dissolved. He called it the network society. No longer, he suggests, will relationships (personal or professional) be built upon physical spaces (places). Instead, they will emerge in “the space of flows.” “The global city, in the strict analytical sense, is not any particular city. ... [it] is a network of noncontiguous territories, reunited around the task of managing globalism by networks that transcend locality” (Castells). One more Castells quote to underscore the new reality: “Interactive networks are the components of [the new] social structure, as well as the agencies of social change.”
What’s the meaning of all of this? Stating the obvious, our world has changed. We live on-line more and more. The VPN or social networking sites like Facebook are the new spaces of gathering, not necessarily the office or the coffee shop, though they will likely be around indefinitely. Castells’s vision is realistic, especially in light of enterprise efficiency. We need to remember that it was the efficiency equation that made computers a fixture in the business world. Also, the socially pervasive get-the-latest-gadget craze has followed the business efficiency equation of keep up or die. In business, to have the edge on the competition, one needs faster and better tools. The technology and thinking that has shaped business efficiency, or maybe military superiority, has spilled into households and has transformed almost everyone's thinking and behaviour.
What has happened in education to reflect the network society? There has been a lot of talk and attempts have been made to incorporate on-line collaborative and other current electronic tools into the learning space. Successes and failures have been realized, and in those is evidence of an attempt to shift pedagogical thinking, to make “educational technology ... a way of thinking,” as Denis said in his article Educational Technology: A Definition for the 21st Century.
I guess a question that might be asked with regard to educational technology is, “Why really do we afford it?” Is the shift in pedagogy about better learning, or is it about mirroring the business community? Is it about creating virtual learning communities, or is it about adhering to standards? I very much like another quote that comes from the 21st century definition article by Denis. Denis quotes James McKernan (2008) as saying, “a curriculum to be truly educational will lead the student to unanticipated rather than predicted outcomes.” What a powerful statement. Does the technology we are making available in schools afford creative and unanticipated outcomes? I think so. The presence of technology in schools, while mirroring the world of work, does yield unpredictable results (some good, and as we all too well know, some not so). It also helps to create a learning culture alive with many possibilities. Over time, with the help of teachers, students will learn how to build robust VPNs to take full charge of their learning. Young Mike’s scrapbook is already in the form of e-portfolios, and meeting places like Second Life or Facebook transcend space like the holograph of Jessica Yellin. The culture is emerging – it’s already here – but it will take more time to fully transform education. We need to keep working at it, planting good seeds and weeding the garden, so to speak. Commitment and leadership are required. Speaking of which, if you have not read Denis's article Educational Technology and Wikipedia, I recommend it. There needs to be someone authoritative around to be able to distinguish a good plant from a weed. Here's a tool to help us with that.
April 2
Need to add this. Denis concluded his article Writing History with Lightning by saying:
The article by Manuel Castells (year 2000) that I referenced in the last entry, Toward a Sociology of the Network Society, and some of Denis’s works have been in my sights during the last few days, along with last week’s TEDs.
Let me begin here by again quoting the Castells paper: “I [Castells] understand technology... as material culture – that is, as a socially embedded process, not as an exogenous factor affecting society.” Sounds familiar. Technology as a process? Our tools shaping us? This is getting old already. Yet, if it is a central idea recognized universally by leading thinkers of our time, then it must be proverbial in nature. “We shape our tools, then our tools shape us” (Marshall McLuhan). Castells defined in the paper a new type of society that depends on information technology and electronic hypertext, is global in scope, but sheds independent sovereignties – the nation state dissolved. He called it the network society. No longer, he suggests, will relationships (personal or professional) be built upon physical spaces (places). Instead, they will emerge in “the space of flows.” “The global city, in the strict analytical sense, is not any particular city. ... [it] is a network of noncontiguous territories, reunited around the task of managing globalism by networks that transcend locality” (Castells). One more Castells quote to underscore the new reality: “Interactive networks are the components of [the new] social structure, as well as the agencies of social change.”
What’s the meaning of all of this? Stating the obvious, our world has changed. We live on-line more and more. The VPN or social networking sites like Facebook are the new spaces of gathering, not necessarily the office or the coffee shop, though they will likely be around indefinitely. Castells’s vision is realistic, especially in light of enterprise efficiency. We need to remember that it was the efficiency equation that made computers a fixture in the business world. Also, the socially pervasive get-the-latest-gadget craze has followed the business efficiency equation of keep up or die. In business, to have the edge on the competition, one needs faster and better tools. The technology and thinking that has shaped business efficiency, or maybe military superiority, has spilled into households and has transformed almost everyone's thinking and behaviour.
What has happened in education to reflect the network society? There has been a lot of talk and attempts have been made to incorporate on-line collaborative and other current electronic tools into the learning space. Successes and failures have been realized, and in those is evidence of an attempt to shift pedagogical thinking, to make “educational technology ... a way of thinking,” as Denis said in his article Educational Technology: A Definition for the 21st Century.
I guess a question that might be asked with regard to educational technology is, “Why really do we afford it?” Is the shift in pedagogy about better learning, or is it about mirroring the business community? Is it about creating virtual learning communities, or is it about adhering to standards? I very much like another quote that comes from the 21st century definition article by Denis. Denis quotes James McKernan (2008) as saying, “a curriculum to be truly educational will lead the student to unanticipated rather than predicted outcomes.” What a powerful statement. Does the technology we are making available in schools afford creative and unanticipated outcomes? I think so. The presence of technology in schools, while mirroring the world of work, does yield unpredictable results (some good, and as we all too well know, some not so). It also helps to create a learning culture alive with many possibilities. Over time, with the help of teachers, students will learn how to build robust VPNs to take full charge of their learning. Young Mike’s scrapbook is already in the form of e-portfolios, and meeting places like Second Life or Facebook transcend space like the holograph of Jessica Yellin. The culture is emerging – it’s already here – but it will take more time to fully transform education. We need to keep working at it, planting good seeds and weeding the garden, so to speak. Commitment and leadership are required. Speaking of which, if you have not read Denis's article Educational Technology and Wikipedia, I recommend it. There needs to be someone authoritative around to be able to distinguish a good plant from a weed. Here's a tool to help us with that.
April 2
Need to add this. Denis concluded his article Writing History with Lightning by saying:
Pedagogy does not exist in a void, but within a cultural context: What should we teach? How do we teach it? Where do we teach it? When do we teach it? Who should do the teaching? The answers to the pedagogic questions clearly lie within the broader conceptualization of the age in which we live.I was going through my stuff and had noticed a note to blog that quote. I knew I had forgotten something. I think that quote basically sums up this entire post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)