Related to Daria's post just below click on this link,
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/03/if-i-ruled-the-world-8/
Clearly we are on the verge on some really big change in how we understand education, intelligence and information. If this a good thing? Real my comment to Daria's earlier post, and hopefully before the end of the weekend I will also have one up about Therapy.
Who are we becoming? The one thing I am certain of is that academia is pretty much clueless about all of this. What does that say about us?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The article seems to be pretty interesting - it articulates how computer games can be great learning opportunities with their complexities - suggesting a very different understanding of education. This definitely ties back to the idea that teachers are likely to become facilitators, rather than 'leaders' of education. That is, students are encouraged to be more independent and active participants of the learning process. However, there is another side of the coin: Do students have the same level of basic functionings to have capabilities to learn independently? For example, a working class kid in a rural area may not have acquired enough basic technical skills to utilize a computerized education opportunity compared to a middle class kid in an urban city. Then the question becomes: As long as the unequal distribution of resources is maintained, can we really talk about computer games as being potential enhancers of self-motivated innovative learning and creativity for students?
ReplyDeleteThe emphasis on 'availability' of computers, internet/video games as learning tools comes from utilitarianism and deals with the 'happiness' and 'satisfaction' of children of certain social classes in society. While internet is a step to participatory democracy and democratic education, it is still limited to certain social groups - Plus, availability may not necessarilty imply accessability or distribution of resources (i.e. middle class kids have more access than the poor). I think this also implies another major challenge to apply CA: it acknowledges that interests, needs and resources of individuals vary, while basic functionings are 'universal.' Then, it becomes hard to determine if some resources are relevant for certain communities/groups. For example, take the the idea about independent learning through videogames - is this releavant for all children? And even more important than that; Are we ready to give 'autonomy' to the children for their participation in education system? If so, the engagement of children and youth need to be broad enough since (as Sen argues) the institutions are complimentary and functionings are interdependent. It seems like our authoritarian selves (as Donna talks about) is a barrier itself!
The availability of technology is a huge issue in rural areas. It might be instrumental to consider the difference between rural and small town - a rural area is defined in some way by isolation, a small town is not isolated. For example, rural poverty in the Eastern U.S. is frequently found in the mountains or in the West in the large distances which separate individuals. There are large rural areas which do not have any access to the internet or if the technology is present it is in the form of dial-up. Maine is combating this by providing imacs to all middle school and high school students - at least the technology exists in the school. Gizem is correct, capability is not present.
ReplyDeleteMore thoughts on my idea of "authoritarian tendencies". It is more accurate to state that there are authoriatian groups/people which are more than happy to exploit fear and anxiety in order to progress their agendas. For example, Heritage Foundation announced in the Wall Street Journal yesterday that they are setting up a new interest group in order to directly influence policy - heritage.org, I think. This development should concern and worry anyone interested in furthering human capabilities as discussed by either Sen or Nussbaum.
As for your questions/thoughts regarding children - in this country first parents need to stop viewing children as their property and society needs to view children as something more than future workers. I would argue that children must be included when considering capability, and not limit capability to the adults taking care of them. Education today most definately negatively impacts a child's level of capability. This is something which I have been spending significant time thinking about and believe that charter schools offer an opportunity for stimulating and diverse education. Interestingly, charters are the darling of neo-liberalism. I am suggesting using their own tool to undermine the vision.
But then the cynic in me emerges. U.S. political culture and institutions are immersed in contract theory and that fact may doom CA.
In the above paragraph, it should read social contract theory, not contract theory.
ReplyDelete