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.
Good luck in the bonspiel. Looking forward to your post.
ReplyDeleteBeing able to do without tech? The 'tech gods' - is that our culture today? Are we are past the point of no return, the key is to use it wisely, perhaps?
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of 'gadgets', I just ordered the book "You are not a gadget" and am reading Shirky's "Here Comes Everybody". Should be an interesting contrast.
Ya, I know... wise use. It's like that with everything. The McLuhan words I quoted are challenging. I see the idea in the context that as we keep evolving technically, we can lose a sensitivity to other essences of life automatically. The autoamputation idea was new to me and its meaning goes beyond just the loss of sensitivity that I've mentioned here. As it says in the book, it goes to how we cope with internal conflict and what we do to resolve it. The idea seems a little out-there, that in the process of creating tools we actually are figuratively dismembering ourselves and creating a technical reality that resembles the best of what we have: hands become grippers, our eyes become telescopes, our memory is in books or on discs, our nervous system the infrastructure of the internet. I think ideas like these go beyond just responsible use of tools in the everyday sense and into the realm of the metaphysical. Is what is really happening beyond the vision of most of us? If we go back to Plato, the question becomes one of an actual vision of reality and what we define that to be.
ReplyDeleteWas showing only two comments after the third was posted, so, I added this one to bump the counter. Inconsistent counters - a phenomenon like none other.
ReplyDeleteYou cannot end by commenting your own comments. Therefore, I am obliged to add to the count. It is true that professionals have already learned how to learn. The question is, when did that learning begin and what did it look like? Perhaps a teacher or professor encapsulated learning through a epistemic frame!! Have a nice summer if we don't talk again.
ReplyDelete