I was going through some old papers that I wrote in grad school and came across this gem. This is only a section, but it still expresses some of my concern with the "idolatry" of the computer that seems to have taken over the educational enterprise in America, and indeed the world. I wish I could say that I have evolved since I wrote this, but I'm afraid I haven't. I'm just too damn critical.
Here you go:
"One of the most prevalent and powerful forces in education today is the view of technology as panacea. Since computers were first introduced into schools technology has been touted as a panacea for the ills and ineffectiveness of modern education (Harper, 1996). This particular mindset pervades all of society, not just education however. Society generally follows technological trends and assumes that newer and more recent technology is better; this creates a “technocentric” mindset in which we place all of our hopes and faith in technology (Papert, 1987). This “technocentric” attitude is the driving force behind the belief that technology is a panacea for the ills of modern education.
Unfortunately, if we look at this mindset through a more rational lens, we see that we have merely succeeded in alienating all of our fears and desires from ourselves, placing them on the altar of technology. Eric Fromm, the prominent psychoanalyst and social critic, defines this type of blind faith as a type of “idolatry”(Fromm, 1994). Instead of taking a more rational and analytic approach to problem solving, we often place our hope for a solution in technology. The perfect example of this blind, idolatrous faith in technology can be seen in the field of medicine. If a patient is unable to be cured of his/her particular ailment we often feel that it is because we do not have sufficient technology to cure them. Education suffers from a similar mindset in which we assume that if students are not learning a certain idea or lesson then perhaps we need to use more technology or technological methods. We assume that if a teacher can’t teach a particular concept then surely a computer can.
This idolatrous shift from “praxis” to “techne”, signals a shift away from the rational to the irrational (Marshall, 1999). Instead of relying upon rational, reflective reasoning process we are too hasty to jump to the conclusion that technology can solve any of the problems that we are faced with. We skip the entire reflective process that constitutes the backbone of constructivist, problem-solving pedagogy and assume that the answer must be technology. In a way we have mythologized technology—it is the ultimate answer if all else fails. This focus away from “praxis” presents an easy excuse for schools that are turning in sub-par performances. Instead of pointing to poor teaching, administration, or a host of other factors, schools are able to use this technocentric attitude to blame the lack of adequate technological resources for poor student or teacher performance. This abrogation of responsibility is quite attractive for mediocre schools that often receive a tremendous amount of criticism. Thus, once again, technology has given the individual, or in this case the school, a way to alienate themselves from any responsibility by pointing to lack of resources as the cause of lackluster student performance.
The Nature of Technology in Schools
Technology is presented to schools as a “value neutral hardware, software and science”(Lauzon, 1999). In fact, the majority of society believes that technology is a value-neutral tool. This claim of technical objectivity stands in direct contrast to the subjective philosophy of constructivism. In fact, according to constructivist thought, it is virtually impossible to claim objectivity of any kind because of the individual nature of knowledge. Yet, one may ask whether or not an object that does not construct knowledge of its own is also subject to this same constructivist assumption? The answer to this query can be found in the work of Herbert Marcuse who says that while technology exists “in itself” rather than “for itself”, technology has taken on a certain schlechte Unmittelbarkeit or bad immediacy in which the technology assumed the values and goals of its users (Marcuse, 1989). This means that if a particular company uses computers, they assume the corporate values of that company. Likewise, if computers or other technology is used by schools it assumes the cultural values of the school. Thus, if we assume that schools are engaged in the work of social reproduction, then computers within that school are also engaged in that selfsame work.
Marcuse’s bad immediacy takes on a whole other facet if computers are donated or bought for the school through corporate or government initiatives. This is an interesting avenue of inquiry because of the numerous technology corporations who donate technology to schools. The bottom line of a post-industrial capitalist corporation is to make money. While some corporations may have extensive philanthropic arms, they are still engaged in the process of acquiring capital. Donating computers to schools does not make good business sense—by donating computers that could have been sold elsewhere corporations seem to be defying the motivations of capitalist society; or are they? By donating computers to schools, corporations are familiarizing thousands of students with their product. By doing so they are creating a future consumer base of individuals who will buy a certain type of computer because that is what they are familiar with. Corporations also create a future labor force by familiarizing students with their particular type of technology—a person who is familiar with a particular type of computer can be seen as a future employee of the technology corporations. Thus the computer, while not blatantly advertising these selfish motives of the economic sector of society, works as a tool to create future consumers and workers—taking on the exploitative values of our economic system.
This ability to mirror the values of its users takes computers out of the realm of the neutral device and into the realm of a tool. Just as a gun cannot be seen as a neutral device, neither can a computer. Thus, if technology takes on the values and aims of its users it then has the ability to become an oppressor. The technocentric orientation of schools combined with the hegemonic curriculum makes computers a valuable tool to further social reproduction and homogenization. By taking on this hegemonic authority, the computer becomes an authority that is to be unchallenged or questioned. In fact, the computer is an authority that cannot be questioned or challenged because of its inability to reflectively respond to any challenge or query. Barry Sanders has pointed out that the one-way flow if information, perpetuated by technology, stifles self-reflection and metacognition (Sanders, 1994). Herbert Marcuse supplements Sanders more recent observations by stating that “technical progress is identical with the increasing elimination of personal initiative”(Marcuse, 1967). Thus, the authority and uni-directional capabilities of technology work in direct opposition to the metacognitive focus of constructivist thought and pedagogy.
This loss of personal initiative may seem to be an extreme prediction of the effects of technological advance, yet its effects are already evident. For example, prior to the invention of computers and the Internet I would have had to go to a library to get resources for my research. I would have had to spend hours going through card catalogs and sifting through shelves and shelves of book to find what I needed. With the advent of computers and the Internet I can do the same amount of work in less time. While I am doing the same amount of work, or maybe even more with the help of the technology resources that are available today, I am not having to go out and exert any effort to get the information that I need. If I have a question I am not forced to go out and search for the answer or problem solve, I can just type my problem into an internet search engine and have the answer within five minutes or less. With access to the bank of information that is available on the Internet a person does not need to be self-motivated to go discover the solution to a problem. With just the touch of a few keys a computer can provide hundreds, if not thousands, of websites that may answer your questions. Certainly there is a significantly increased level of convenience with technology but it also has the capability to stifle problem solving, an integral part of constructivist pedagogy. This ability to effortlessly spew out great masses of information gives the computer tremendous power; the computer has the potential to easily assume a position of oppressive authority that we readily accept because of the ease and convenience it offers.
Learner Control and Computers
Within the constructivist paradigm the learner is the center of the educational phenomenon. The learner builds upon existing knowledge or adds to prior knowledge by metacognitively monitoring the flow of information; the learner personalizes real-world experiences in an attempt to construct meaning. The bounds of the constructivist-learning phenomenon are only limited by the curiosity and motivation of the student. This curiosity and control of the student, while practical in the traditional classroom setting, has limited practicability when applied to computerized instruction or software.
Computer programs present the student with pre-conceived and pre-constructed realities. These realities are based upon the reality of the programmer(s), the limits of the software, and the limits of the hardware. These pre-constructed realities limit the extent to which a student can exercise their curiosity and motivation—there have been prespecified limits placed upon the learning event. In other words, because there is a prespecified telos in all computer programs they limit the extent to which a student can exercise his/her own personal initiative in the context of the computer program. In a sense, the programmer has structured the reality of the student for them limiting the extent to which a student can project his/her own understandings onto the program (Sanders, 1994), thus negating the primary tenet of constructivism—the individual construction of knowledge. Certainly each student constructs the information they receive from the computer in different ways but there is a certain homogenization of experience as the reality presented by a computer is insufficiently accessible or complex to allow for individualized exploration. Thus, while the computer may present a façade of individual control for each student, the real extent of that control has been limited through the medium of the technology.
There are those who would refute this past argument by pointing to the World Wide Web as a limitless field of information and experience. While this may be true to some minor extent, content on the WWW is still limited by the programming languages that make it possible. There are only so many accessibility options that a web page can provide given the limits of technology. The programming language (HTML, XML, Java, etc), transactional shells (Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, etc.), and hardware (RAM, Mbps, Multimedia capabilities) all place severe constraints on what can be explored and found within the great expanse of the WWW. The WWW could easily be seen as an ill-structured learning environment as defined by Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, and Coulson and thus an ineffective learning or teaching tool (1991?). The human mind has finite capabilities in terms of the amount of information that it is able to absorb in a certain period of time. The WWW usually presents the student with what I call the “firehose phenomenon”. A student who goes to the WWW to do research may only be looking for one specific bit of information yet most search engines will return upwards of 1000 sites that are relevant to a particular topic. This is similar to a person going to get a small drink of water to quench their thirst, yet instead of drinking from a glass they choose to use a firehose: there is just simply too much to swallow at one time. Thus, while it may seem that the WWW presents a reasonable alternative, it also presents an unrealistic and often overwhelming experience for most students.
Technology places limits on the learner and the learning experience by virtue of its filtering influence. Learner interaction with technology is controlled by the predetermined limits that the computer or software presents. The learner has symbolic control over what occurs while they are using technology, but the real controlling influence has already been built into the machine or the software; the learner can only do that which the computer will allow him/her to do. Thus, the learner is “objectified” or “alienated” from the learning experience. In other words the learner has ceased to be the controlling locus of the educational phenomenon or experience, instead the learner is acted upon by the technology. Technology presents a filter that makes this subtle control unnoticeable and acceptable while presenting the student with a virtual learning experience.[i] This “virtual” learning experience stands in sharp contrast to the multimodal, action oriented pedagogy espoused by constructivists. Unfortunately, our technology has not yet reached a state in which it can even partially replace authentic experience and activity.
[i] Within this context I prefer to use the virtual vs. authentic dichotomy. Technology presents a filtered or mediated learning experience that is significantly limited in interaction and control. An authentic learning experience is what we think of in the more traditional sense. An authentic learning experience presents the student with real-life activities in which the student may be actively engaged in the learning and control process. A virtual learning experience presents the student with information in two possible modes—sight and sound—whereas an authentic learning experience can engage more of the students’ senses.
It wasn't ever filled to capacity, but there were quite a few people there and it went well. Although the session was entitled "The Geographies of Youth", the other presenters and I decided that it would have been more appropriate to have entitled it "Discourses of Exclusion and Space". We all focused on the intertwined notions of discursive space and how it defines and it, in turn, defined by physical space (here's a copy of my presentation, if you're interested). I looked at the discourse of disability/normality, Dan from Edinburgh discussed the racialized discourse of post-Apartheid South Africa, and Wael from Cairo discussed the deconstruction and redefining of physical space through virtual discourse. It
was all very fascinating and introduced me to some new ideas and people. I am especially fascinated by Wael's notion of "heterotopia's" and the distinction between the heterogeneous space where individuation is acceptable under certain socially defined norms, versus the traditional concept of utopia where all subscribe to similar beliefs, ideals, and modes of interaction.
