Since no one was apparently interested in responding to my last written post, I suppose that will have to find some new topic of discussion. Here is a quotation concerning technology that recently struck me. Christopher Dawson, an English historian and Harvard professor writing in 1961, had this to say of technology: "The more the technological order advances, and the greater the pressure it exerts on the individual, the stronger is the emotional reaction by which the forces that have been suppressed find release. In the pre-technological order, the craftsman and manual laborer tended to release their psychic tensions in the exercise of their work. But in the technological order this is not so, the man who drives a truck or minds a machine has to subordinate himself to the discipline of the machine. His emotions find no expression in his work - or, if they do, he is a bad workman....[T]he fundamental emotional needs remain unsatisfied (The Crisis of Western Education, 191).
There is little denying that we live in a society driven by technological innovation, a fact currently driven home to us in the MAC program by the extensive focus on technology in the teaching profession and in teacher education (secondary school investment in technology, one-to-one computers and video cameras, Education 504, etc.). As teachers and as members in a modern Western society, it would behoove us, I think, to be cognizant of how this technological order affects both our everyday lives and our inner lives (in "psychic," Dawson refers to the soul). We can utilize technology in our classrooms all we want, but we still need to to answer the same question that the sixty-year old chalk-wielding teacher does: Are we teaching well? We might pride ourselves in our "successful" integration of technology with instruction, but we cannot claim true success unless we are also teaching what is worthwhile. If innovation is made an end in itself, if change becomes a pursuit for its own sake, if "progress" is measured by the number of teachers that have rid themselves of "outdated" instruction, then we have, I think, lost a coherent vision of the end of education, for change in itself has no definite criteria with which to found any institution or society.
This is not a matter of teachers being "enslaved to the machine," but of an excessive faith in a tool. Instead of asking how we can make instruction more "fun" or "relevant," perhaps we should first ask how we can make education more coherent. Instead of allowing the teacher's craft to be largely dependent on the limits of a particular tool (no matter how "powerful" we might think that tool is), we as teachers need to allow our art to flourish through a passionate love for knowledge and through a deep concern for students' intellectual growth. Technology is not necessarily limiting, any more than a chalkboard is limiting. But it also does not necessarily improve instruction either. Yet we are living in a society obsessed with technological innovation, to the extent that this obsession provides a defining vision for our society's very direction and purpose. And this has only served to weaken the very spiritual and moral foundations of our current culture. This is the culture in which not only we as teachers are living, but also in which our students live and grow.
Finding ourselves in the midst of a generation so caught up with the technological order, we cannot afford to uncritically "go with the flow." Part of our craft in today's climate involves balancing a number of emphases currently in vogue, of which technology is just one. Just as we should not become excessively dependent on technology, so also we should avoid an excessive dependence on governmental policies. Too often policymakers divorced from the reality of the classroom impose uniform dictates that violate a teacher's freedom to progress in a meaningful way. Thus, in the name of "fun" or "engaging" instruction we should also not lower our expectations and allow a vague checklist of "standards" to replace them. We are living in a technological order which is joined to an over-bearing bureaucracy in which people no longer come "face to face with ultimate realities," and in which people are only brought "into closer dependence on the state and its bureaucracy so that every human need can be met by filling in the appropriate form" (Dawson, 175). Let us then, as teachers and members in this society, proceed with critical minds and with a coherent vision of reality and education. We cannot progress by simply founding our craft or society in constant cries for change. Change is meaningful only when it is inspired by a vision that conforms with reality in such a way that its implementation is founded on this coherent vision.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Michael, your citing of Christopher Dawson's cautions regarding technology put me in mind of the more recently-expressed concerns of Neil Postman, whose work I imagine you would find both interesting and provocative. I'd submit that we would be wise to be mindful of Neil Postman’s observation that “the best way to view technology is as a strange intruder, to remember that technology is not part of God’s plan but a product of human creativity and hubris, and that its
capacity for good or evil rests entirely on human awareness of what it does for us and to us." This was excerpted from a speech he gave entitled “Five Things We Need to Know About Technological
Change” by Neil Postman, found on the Instructional Technology Resource Specialists website here
In this essay, Postman writes of the ecological changes that come with technology, changes that have social consequences and that affect both reality and our perception of same.
Once again, your comments stir me to think of opportunities. I heartily agree that it is vital for us, as teachers, to devote consistent time and energy to thinking about our purposes as educators. Why are we putting our energy and talent in this work, and not in any of a thousand other honorable professions?
It comes down in my mind to thinking about what we mean by the word "well," in the context of your framing of the question: "are we teaching well?"
What do we mean by well and, depending on that meaning, what kinds of criteria can we apply that will help us judge whether in fact we are, or whether we're at least pointing in the right direction?
In that spirit, we can examine what we mean by an idea like "well" alongside or in concert with your notion of "coherence" or "relevance," or other ideas like "calling upon an array of skills and knowledge" and "respecting both our students and our subject." I think that among the reasons why this job can be so wonderful is that it frames complex challenges embedded in the above, challenges that push us to think about how we deal, on a day-in, day-out "micro" level, with how our teaching decisions interact with the our students and their idiosyncrasies. Trying to get a better handle on the interplay between ideas, people, teaching goals, systems, and external political considerations is a piece of work worthy of the energy of someone as thoughtful as you are, Michael, and it's why my mentor typically responded to (justifiable) complaints about the meager compensation for teacher by saying that "they're going to PAY you to learn." It's a pretty good deal.
To that end, I'd love to read soon about what you're seeing "on the ground" in your placement, and what it's leading you to think about regarding these challenging questions of teaching and learning.
Technology has recently become a hot button issue at my school, which has undergone a change of leadership.
Instead of imposing technology on the faculty from the top down, as I have noticed happens in many schools, I'm happy to report that our new administration has put together a committee of teachers to create a 3 year technology plan. It is encouraging to know that school administrators are finally learning that having technology for technology's sake does not work for the 21st century student... I look forward to participating in the discussions and help take ownership of the technology integration process, which is something that I believe is lacking in education today.
hahaha - I'm laughing at your intro. "Since no one reads this..."
In response to the substance of your post, I thought it was really interesting. I think that while technology can squelch (sp?) creativity, I have found that there are certain technological tools that really help me express my creativity. For instance, I felt very fulfilled, proud, and creative when I created a website and a wiki for my class. Knowing that these sites will be viewed by students and parents makes me excited (same for my blog!). I love making thing aesthetically pleasing.
Other things, though, like using search engines, reading online articles, etc. is really tedious and probably does drain us of our ability to think critically.
Basically, I think it is the teacher's responsibility to make technology use something that is expressive (not limiting to stifling).
Post a Comment