Most of the following ideas are from a paper by Norman Friesen (2008). Friesen applies an ideological critique on the dominant discourses within educational technology, a field that he himself belongs to. Although heavy with academic jargon, it is a worthwhile read, particularly the author's conclusion about how ideological critique offers alternative ways of seeing the world. I have also reviewed a blog shared by David on whether MOOCs are a new form of colonialism. The author, Philip G. Altbach, presents some interesting points, particularly about the dominance of the English language around the globe and the marginalisation of other education providers that is happening as a result of MOOCs mostly being provided by universities in the U.S. and other Western countries.
The claims and ideas presented in YouTube videos, blogs, journals, etc. about e-learning and networked learning, when examined through an ideological critique, illustrates that the dominant narrative of "technological progress" has been constructed in the interests of individuals and groups who benefit from its application. An analysis of the language, particularly the catchphrases and buzzwords that are used to describe the future of learning, such as phrases like "knowledge economy" (e.g. Gandel, Katz Metros, 2004 as cited in Friesen, 2008) or even "lifelong learning" has become so dominant in the discussion about ICTs in learning that the claims are made to appear as inevitable, natural and just the way things are. Due to this, educational technologists like Friesen (2008), claim that the use of such language is "used to legitimate or promote particular priorities and perspectives" in education (Friesen, 2008).
Friesen's thesis is that, through "historicising" (putting in a historical context) and "denaturalising" (seeing the phenomena as made not natural) the "common sense" ideas about technology in education - "powerful, entrenched and often conservative social interests" - are simplifying or obscuring a "complex social reality," a reality that is conflicted with different forms of knowledge and can be interpret in a diversity of ways, depending on one's interests or motivations (Friesen, 2008). In other words, by using comparative analysis the individual is able to see how the discourses on technology in education are situationally-based, not inevitable or natural phenomena.
Friesen (2008) highlights the consequences of a "radically new social, historical or economic order centred on information or knowledge," as is often claimed by not only educational technologists but also in every self-proclaiming progressive document that I have read in the past ten years. He writes that:
[T]raditional educational artifacts - such as "classrooms," "professors" and "degrees" - are generally seen as being superseded in this new economy, by more advanced information or knowledge technologies: computer supported "knowledge building" environments (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003), learning objects (Polsani, 2003) and other advanced technologies (Freisan, 2008).One of the potential losses of living in a "knowledge economy" is how the acquisition of knowledge is not seen as leading to "enlightenment or of democratic decision-making," as I once and still do believe it does, it is now seen as a "kind of service, utility or good to be bought and sold, used enhanced and re-used" (Friesen, 2008), thus making knowledge a "learning object." Objectification, in my opinion, is problematic as the item is no longer valued when it is seen as an object, it becomes more like a means to an end.
Another potential consequence of becoming a "knowledge worker" is how you are positioned as a "producer and consumer" in a society that is "dominated by economic activity." As this positioning does not suit everyone, as many individuals do not belong to the "single (and relatively small) privileged group (or class) of people," who are mostly "white and male" (Nakamura, 2002, p.58, as cited in Friesen, 2008), the economic gaps and inequalities are increasing, not only in Australia but around the world.
The final, but certainly not the least, and perhaps my greatest original concern when it came to networked learning was the impact on professions, credentials, and most importantly to me, knowledge. As Friesen (2008) highlights, and distinguishes as a "myth," is how the impact of technology on society has been "encapsulated in so-called "laws" of technically-driven progress and change." This change or progress is purported to have the "power to change professional practices and priorities irrevocably or even, to render them obsolete" (Friesen, 2008). I remember back in 2008 (when Friesen's paper was written) and I was thinking about my role as an educator in the profession, and what direction I was going to move in, I was subsumed by the diatribe of "technically-driven change" in education.
Nevertheless, the availability of so much information, particularly education through MOOCs, has been dubbed as a potential solution to inequality as they are provided for free, so "anyone" is able to access them, or at least anyone with a computer and broadband connection. One of my peer's Andrew highlights how this is not so. He writes how studens living in "rural and low socioeconomic areas" may have "logistical problems accessing" the technologies to be able to take advantage of the "free" education. Altbach also highlights, although these online courses are an "inexpensive way" to deliver education to vast audiences, they "may inhibit the emergence of a local academic culture", or "local academic content," in other regions of the same country or around the globe. Altbach reminds the reader that he does not think it is any kind of "conspiracy" or deliberate ploy on the part of the MOOCs, he just says that as soon as the MOOC providers "figure out how to make money," they "will seek to corner the market."
This concerns me and is something that happens with monopolisation in all sectors. I notice as the massive stores like Woolworths, Coles, Bunnings, Super-Amart, Super [place any name here] become bigger (and bigger), and even start replacing other products with their own brand, small businesses and other companies are unable to compete. As much as I am for the free-market the issue of monopolies is something that is very troubling, particularly in a world where there is a growing rich/poor divide. Are most of the population going to be working in the service industries, as Friesen highlights as increasing? I'm not sure what the solution is but, as with the neo-colonialism that is happening due to the ascendency of the English language around the globe, it would be a very narrow and not to mention oppressive world if alternative voices were not heard. What works for the elite does not work for everyone. Operating a small business can be immensely empowering for many, and in many ways I see entrepreneurship as part of the human condition for many, if not all.
Over the last ten years there has also been a technological determinism that is driving education, both in the university and secondary education sector. I do remember students referring to some lecturers as "laggards," or refusing to harness the potential of new technologies, however, all I was concerned about was my relationship with the lecturers, and whether they were passionate about their subject area. I found that their interest in the subject was far more important than the tools, or bells and whistles they used. This is probably the major reason why I chose to offer an in-person service rather than something online. There's a quote that when providing a service, if you're not the first person in line for that service, do not offer it. I would be unlikely to see an online learning coach, not because I don't think they'll be high quality, but because I want to work with them in person.
A final point that Friesen (2008) that I found very interesting was the use of Learning Management Systems (LMS) in universities and how they did not disrupt the conventional educational landscape, in fact, they merely enforced it. This is because much of the web-based software was designed and developed by individuals and communities within universities, thus LMS is "conforming with the interests and management structures" already in place, reinforcing the "traditional functions and identities of university personnel, teachers, students, and administrators" (Friesen, 2008). Therefore, the traditional model of the university is sustained, and that is why it prevails.
Most of all, and something that will remain with me is Friesen's (2008) application of Critical Theory to the discourse of educational technology and how it illuminates a fundamental purpose to ideological critique. I discovered that if one is to realise alternatives in education, they must first recognise what is taken for granted or viewed as normal or natural, (to do this they need to identify it as a "myth," or as made by humans (i.e. socially constructed), and then, and only then, will they be able to realise an alternative, particularly if they are going to propose a progressive research design. This realisation is exciting as up to this point I was wondering how does one re-vision something that seemed so entrenched and just the way things are.
I am now like this bird below, pondering all the possibilities .....
by Darron Birgenheier References:
Friesen, N. (2008). Critical Theory: Ideology Critique and the Myths of E-Learning, Ubiquity, 9(22), Retrieved from http://ubiquity.acm.org.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/article.cfm?id=1386860
No comments:
Post a Comment