What is School For?

Yes to be literate in this century does require an expanded skill set from the last century. However I think as educators we need to pause and ponder, what is school for? Why should we be literate? And goodness, what is technology and what is your philosophy of it all? Most schools I have had to good fortune to work in have had an intertwined philosophy of both education and technology. Sometimes we need students to simply practice skills by rote. In some cases content is, dare I say, “covered”. Sometimes in a grade one classroom we need to train students to remember how to spell “cat” and how to tell the difference between 6 and 9. However mostly we want schools to teach students how to think deeply and how to live well with each other. Most skilled teachers that I have known flip back and forth between instruction and construction but always with a focus on designing good tasks that allows students to have choice in how they approach the task. It is easy to get lost in the razzle-dazzle of a new technology, but good teaching and learning isn’t about technology. Teaching and learning is a process, learning is negotiation and it can be messy. How can we really learn without a little confusion. We need to be curious rather than certain!  I believe we learn “with” technology not because of it. If we want our schools to foster meaningful learning, Howland, Jonassen, and Marra (2012) argue that teachers must treat technology as a partner in the learning process. I say Technology can be a pathway to understanding. In this light, technology is more than a device. It has the potential to broaden our human capacity to learn not because it has some magical power. As an intellectual partner, technology can support us in reflecting and processing the confusion between what we think, we perceive and what we think we know as a meaning-making event.

Howland, J., Jonassen, D. H., & Marra, R. M. (2012). Meaningfullearning with technology (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Defining Technology in a New Culture of Learning

A Paper published for

 
Canadian Scholarly Literature and Research 

Regarding School Libraries in Canada

for the TMC symposium held in Victoria, British Columbia on May 29-31, 2014 

by Dr. Nancy Stuewe

Abstract: Governments have called for teachers to adopt a new role as architects of learning and use technology differently to support a constructivist approach to teaching and learning. Likewise schools are being challenged to harness exciting, yet unfamiliar information and communication technology. This paper is a segment of a literature review taken from, Unfamiliar Technology and the Architect of Learning: A Case Study (Stuewe, 2013b). It is intended to highlight the complex perspectives of how innovation is perceived and adopted in technology-enhanced learning environments such as the Learning Commons. This literature review contains a broad definition of technology followed by a brief exploration of three different traditions of education. It is important to note that there are many layers of traditions of education and many perspectives of technology all interconnected. This exploration focuses on the relationship between the role of the teacher, the beliefs in a teaching and learning environment, and how technology might be employed to support these beliefs.

Introduction

     There is a new culture of learning (Calgary Board of Education, 2013; Thomas & Brown, 2011). Governments have called for teachers to adopt a new role as architects of learning and use technology differently to support a constructivist approach to teaching and learning (Government of Alberta, 2010). The architect of learning is a metaphor used to describe the role and context of teachers within a constructivist approach to teaching and learning. An architect designs the plans from which others will build (Shepherd, 2011; Stuewe, 2013a).  The new learner depends heavily on technology to keep in touch, entertain, as well as obtain and share information.  “Today’s learners cannot imagine life without the Internet and supporting technology” (Calgary Board of Education, 2013, p. 2).  Yet, “they need to be taught how these tools can be used in learning and critical thought” (Ontario School Library Association, 2010, p. 7). According to Sawyer (2006) studies of knowledge workers show that teachers apply their expertise in complex settings with a wide array of teaching tools from emerging technology to pencil and paper. Schrum, Shelly, and Miller (2008) reported that enormous funds have been devoted toward encouraging teachers to adopt new and emerging technology, yet not much has changed in spite of this expense and effort. Loertscher, Koechlin, and Zwaan (2008) also argue that in the New Learning Commons, teachers need to view technology as an extension of themselves and “not equipment or networks to battle” (p.46). This paper is intended to highlight these many complex perspectives of how technology is perceived and adopted in technology-enhanced learning environments such as the Learning Commons. I begin this literature review with a broad definition of technology followed by a brief exploration of three different traditions of education. This exploration focuses on the relationship between the role of the teacher, the beliefs in a teaching and learning environment, and how technology might be employed to support these beliefs.

Defining Technology for Education

     Amiel and Reeves (2008) noted a need for educators to become more philosophical about their view of technology and the value it holds to support learning. Ihde (2004) related that a conservative interpretation of technology is “simply as a human invention[s] which get used in good or bad ways” (p. 99). Ihde pointed out that a tool perspective of technology could take on a value-neutral or a value-laden role. Cuban (2001) suggested that policymakers as well as teachers expressed a value-neutral view of technology in his study. However his observations suggested something different. Cuban (2001) stated, “wiring schools, purchasing computers, networking machines, and using the machines themselves are hardly value-free behaviours” (p. 164). The using and choosing of technology for a purpose is a specific value choice in itself (Cunningham & Allen, 2010). Ihde (1993) described this dualistic view as utopia versus dystopia. A double-edged sword metaphor can be used to support this view. However technology is not just objects we handle and as Ihde remarked, dualism, “makes for great difficulty in a careful, balanced, and critical analysis” (p. 62).

     A double-edged sword metaphor of technology limits our understanding to good or bad in how it functions or as skill we can master. Alternately, a ground-map metaphor may permit us to be open to more complexity and to pay particular attention to the process as well as the many activities, regions, resources, and boundaries of technology use (Cunningham & Allen, 2010). Ihde (2004) stated that John Dewey was concerned with “developing a primacy of praxis orientation to philosophy” (p. 96). Hickman (2002) in reviving Dewey’s pragmatism described technology as a complex process that includes not only the device but also the thoughtful use of it with a goal to resolve issues. Amiel and Reeves (2008) have also stated, “technology is much more than hardware. It is a process that involves the complex interactions of human, social, and cultural factors as well as the technical aspects” (p. 31). This birds-eye perspective of technology allows us to expand the boundaries around its use and to see technology as a tool to engage in work and at the same time a skill that we can learn to master. However, Dewey (1938) might tell us skill involves experience; to polish a skill requires know-how that includes a process of teaching and learning. Amiel and Reeves (2008) have stated “Technology is not a product and instead is a process: tools are merely a product of a technological system” (p. 32).  As a process, technology is not just a means to an end, but ends and means all bound up interactively in practice (Hickman, 1992). It may also be seen as a means through which we might relate, communicate, and participate with the world. Looking at technology as a means to an end, one might think of technology as a catalyst for higher student achievement. However with a process view, technology is part of the interaction of learning that, “generates new knowledge that challenges, adds to, or deepens the learner’s existing framework of knowledge” (Burns, 2013, p. 39). Technology in this light becomes an intellectual partner (Howland, Jonassen, & Marra, 2012).  

     Neither technology nor education is value free. Branch and Deissler (2008) have described education also as a process, a series of purposeful actions and operations. They have suggested the process of education can be supported with the use of technology. To expand the boundaries of technology’s definition further, Internet-based learning management systems, such as Desire2Learn™ or Blackboard Learning System allow teachers to consider technology also as an environment, as a contained place to design, work, interact, and collaborate within. Feenberg (2002) suggested that a new metaphor for technology might be a house, not just a device but an “extremely rich and meaningful life environment” (p. xi). Within this complex view, people and not the device have volition. Teachers have the opportunity to use technology with knowledge, action, and to make connections with ideas and others. The Learning Commons might become an expanded physical and virtual learning place or experience. New information and communication technologies allow classrooms to connect with individual access and also with participatory knowledge-building capabilities (Cunningham & Allen, 2010). Wikis, blogs, Google Docs, and collaborative mind-mapping tools under the direction of an Architect of learning, allow participants to critique and potentially build on each other’s ideas. Amiel and Reeves (2008) raises concern for teachers in that these new information and communication technologies greatly increase the complexity of the integration of technology into educational environments. Derry (2008) has cautioned, “even though recent work has concentrated on more detailed questions of learning and pedagogy, the question of knowledge has been neglected” (p. 509). Derry reminds us not to downplay the human dimension of the nature of knowledge while at the same time do not give into the glamour and hype of technology. 

Traditions in Education

     According to Sawyer (2006) much of society is unaware of important discoveries emerging from the learning sciences regarding how people learn and how technology can assist in the process in education. Sawyer has suggested that most parents and policy makers remember a focus on instruction and memorization of facts. Teachers also have either spent a career learning the skills to manage an instructionist classroom or have strong memories of being students in such classrooms. As schools move from teacher directed learning towards process and knowledge building we find many interconnected perspectives of knowledge exist in education. Teachers in general find themselves in the midst of many philosophical and ideological traditions (Barrow, 2010; Sawyer, 2006, 2008). Molenda (2008) noted that how and if a technology is considered at all will depend on the beliefs of teachers in a teaching and learning environment. Can the same be said for how a learning space is utilized? The following is a brief exploration of the relationship between the role of teachers, their beliefs in a teaching and learning environment, and how technology is employed to support these beliefs in three different traditions in education; instructionist, humanist, and constructivist.

Instructionist

     In an instructionist tradition of education, knowledge may be considered acquired, gained and measured in steps. Cunningham and Allen (2010) described unified standards by age, content, and performance. Accountability systems may be structured by a hierarchical approach for improving achievement in teaching and learning. The role of the teacher may be seen as a knowledge authority to prioritize the standards and find a way to measure progress. “The route to better learning must be the improvement of instruction” (Papert, 1993, p. 139). The decisions teachers make are data driven. The teacher looks for objective evidence of what is working or not in order to make appropriate adjustments (McNeil, 2009).  Educational research is utilized to assist teachers in achieving the curriculum objectives not in participating in its creation (Sawyer, 2006). It stands to reason that a learning space would also be organized and accessed to serve these beliefs.

According to Duffy and Cunningham (1996) technology is adopted by instructionist teachers as a teaching or delivery tool to “provide more effective and efficient delivery of instruction and hence more effective and efficient learning” (p. 18). McNeil (2009) also noted that technology is regarded as an instructional intervention in this systemic curriculum. Technology becomes an efficient way to achieve knowledge acquisition and proof of conceptual understanding (p. 161). The tool of choice for the teacher with these objectives might be one that will help students add to their knowledge store, such as word processing, CD-ROMs, PowerPoint, and drill and practice websites.

Humanist

     In contrast to instructionist McNeil (2009) sees, a humanistic teaching and learning tradition as concerned with self-understanding while fostering emotional and physical growth. The goal of a humanist tradition might be to promote intellectual skills necessary for independent judgement. Its purpose is to provide the learner with intrinsic rewarding experiences that contribute to personal liberation. The role of the teacher is to provide a warm and trusting environment as well as to function as a facilitator while providing challenging learning opportunities. In a humanist tradition, the learning focus is on knowledge gained through personal concerns and self-expression. (Underhill, 1989) described humanist education as a process of life-long learning. The job of a teacher-facilitator is not to decide what the students should learn but rather to identify and create the ingredients of a climate that helps free them to learn and grow. Reflective discussion is a key ingredient for negotiation and choice in matters of authority and responsibility in the classroom. Autonomous and authoritative power is in continuous flux. Classroom decision-making continuously shifts back and forth. A learning space might reflect this by providing comfortable furnishings, plants and pleasant colours.

     McNeil (2009) highlighted the idea that technology opens many possibilities of exploration in humanist education for teachers and students. However, its use focuses on learning and meeting the needs of people. In the humanist tradition, technology assists in finding the answers to personal questions, connecting people to each other, and helping people to make decisions.

Constructivist

     In a constructivist perspective, learning is a complex process that is primarily under the control of learners. It occurs under the teacher’s guidance within the context of the teaching and learning environment (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Molenda, Rezabek, & Robinson, 2008). The focus is on a process for learners to make connections in a whole world of meaning. The role of the teacher is like an architect of learning, “one who plans, designs and oversees learning activities (Government of Alberta, 2010). Teachers “strive to create environments where learners actively participate in the environment in ways that are intended to help them construct their own knowledge” (Jonassen, 2009). Duffy and Cunningham (1996) stated that “learning is seen to occur when the learner’s expectations are not met, and he or she must resolve the discrepancy between what was expected and what was actually encountered” (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). Constructivists stress the importance of self-awareness of learning and knowing. Duffy and Cunningham preferred the term reflexivity. It is a process of construction in which conflict of understanding leads to puzzlement and questions. These questions, McKenzie (2000) has related, help us to make sense of the world. McKenzie also explained that in the constructivist tradition, questions might be our “most powerful tools when it comes to making decisions and solving problems, for inventing, changing and improving our lives” (p. 1).

     According to Koechlin, Rosenfeld and Loertscher (2011) the Learning Commons is student centred and looks like a multi-functional place that allows for creativity as well as reflect the communities learning needs. The Learning Commons approach emphasises individual and collective knowledge construction and contains a collaborative learning model for both students and teachers as learners (Koechlin, Rosenfeld, & Loertscher, 2010). This new culture of learning views learning as experimental, inquiry based, collaborative, social and technology rich (Calgary Board of Education, 2013, p. 3).

     Within the constructivist tradition Howland, Jonassen, and Marra (2012) have used the term meaningful learning to describe a process of learning through inquiry. With its interrelated, interactive, and interdependent characteristics, meaningful learning, they say, is active, constructive, intentional, authentic, and collaborative. In this way Howland et al. have related that technology becomes a “partner in the learning process” (Howland et al., 2012). Meaningful learning happens with technology, not because of technology. They suggest technology can be thought of as an intellectual partner in the learning process. Derry (2008) also believes that the principle of design of technology-enhanced learning environments should have a learning-driven focus and not a technocentric one. Learning should drive the use of technology, not the other way around. In a constructivist tradition, technology can be viewed as a pathway for learning, not a delivery vehicle. Teachers do not need to become experts with technology to support learners and learning; they only need a working knowledge and a willingness to try.

     Technology becomes a complex notion of devices, process, and practice that also includes methods of fruitful questioning. The implications of learning with technology in a constructivist perspective are that teaching and learning becomes linked in a process. Instruction may spark curiosity and questions can motivate intelligent action that in turn may lead to an accumulation of experience. Together instruction, questions, and technology could mediate the teaching and learning process. Jonassen, Carr and Yueh (Jonassen, Carr, & Yueh, 1998) have used the term “mind tools” to describe the process in which learning with technology becomes an “intellectual partnership” (p. 31).

Conclusion

     There is a need for educators to become more philosophical about their view of technology and the value it holds to support learning. The instructionist tradition of education suggests knowledge is scarce and reality is objective; technology then may be accessed as a neutral tool to support the efficient collection of data and improve delivery of instruction (McNeil, 2009). However in a constructivist tradition technology becomes a process or a networked activity. Teachers look for more pragmatic evidence of projects completed (Howland et al., 2012). Truth is socially negotiated (Crotty, 1998). Learning spaces would foster collaboration and the personal management of collective knowledge. With a process view, technology not only lends itself to the exploration of questions but also potentially could be used as a pathway to take learners on an exploration and perhaps a place of learning.

It is important to note that many layers of traditions and many perspectives of knowledge are interconnected. As architects of learning, teachers understand that what makes learning meaningful is a personal exploration of content, a focus on designing good tasks for exploration, and a willingness to gain enough awareness of technology to support the process as an intellectual partner. Technology will be used in the Learning Commons to serve user in the time and place in which they work. How teachers think of technology within the Learning Commons and how they create, use, and manage learning resources depends greatly on their beliefs about how people learn as well as the demands of their job (Molenda et al., 2008).

What has emerged from the literature is that technology is a complex notion of devices, process, and practice that also includes methods of fruitful questioning. The implications of learning with technology in a constructivist perspective are that teaching and learning becomes linked in a process. With a process view, technology may be viewed as a place in which we might relate, communicate, and participate with the world. This view of technology highlights a need to encourage teachers to develop an awareness of a relationship between learning and technology. The focus then becomes more on how do we support teachers to become more like architects and use technology support the human process of teaching and learning and less on technology as a means to an end and flashy technocentric thinking. 

REFERENCES

Amiel, T., & Reeves, T. C. (2008). Design-based research and educational technology: Rethinking technology and the research agenda. Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 29–40.

Barrow, R. (2010). Schools of thought in philosophy of education. In R. Bailey, R. Barrow, D. Carr, & C. McCarthy (Eds.), (pp. 21–35). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Branch, R., & Deissler, C. (2008). Processes. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), (pp. 195–211). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Burns, M. (2013). Success , failure or no significant difference : Charting a course for successful educational technology integration. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 8(1), 38–45.

Calgary Board of Education. (2013). Library to learning commons implementation guide (pp. 0–17). Calgary, AB.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process (p. 248). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Cunningham, C., & Allen, B. (2010). Philosophical questions about learning technologies. In R. Bailey, R. Barrow, D. Carr, & C. McCarthy (Eds.), (pp. 481–502). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Derry, J. (2008). Technology-Enhanced learning: A question of knowledge. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(3-4), 505–519.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education (p. 91). New York, NY: Kappa Delta Pi.

Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), (pp. 170–198). New York: McMillan.

Feenberg, A. (2002). Transforming technology: A critical theory revisited (Rev., pp. xi, 218). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Government of Alberta. (2010). Inspiring education: A dialogue with Albertans. Edmonton, AB. Retrieved from https://education.alberta.ca/media/7145083/inspiring education steering committee report.pdf

Hickman, L. (1992). John Dewey’s pragmatic technology (p. 234). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Hickman, L. (2002). Larry Hickman lecture on John Dewey, democracy, and global citizenship. Retrieved May 12, 2010, from http://www.ikedacenter.org/thinkers-themes/thinkers/lectures-talks/hickman-lecture

Howland, J., Jonassen, D. H., & Marra, R. M. (2012). Meaningful learning with technology (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Ihde, D. (1993). Philosophy of technology: An introduction. New York: Paragon House.

Ihde, D. (2004). Philosophy of technology. In P. Kemp (Ed.), (pp. 91–108). Printed in the Netherlands: Springer.

Jonassen, D. H. (2009). Technology as Cognitive Tools : Learners as Designers, 1–7.

Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H.-P. (1998). Computers as mind tools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24–32.

Koechlin, C., Luhtala, M., & Loertscher, D. V. (2011). Knowledge Building in the Learning Commons. Teacher Librarian, 38, 20–23,26.

Koechlin, C., Rosenfeld, E., & Loertscher, D. V. (2010). Building the learning commons: A guide for school administrators and learning leadership teams. Salt Lake, UT: Hi Willow Research & Publishing.

Loertscher, D. V., Koechlin, C., & Zwaan, S. (2008). The new learning commons: Where learners win. Salt Lake: Hi Willow Research & Publishing.

McNeil, J. D. (2009). Contemporary curriculum: In thought and action. University of California, Los Angeles: John Wiley and Sons.

Molenda, M. (2008). Using. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), (pp. 141–173). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Molenda, M., Rezabek, L., & Robinson, R. (2008). Facilitating learning. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), (pp. 15–47). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ontario School Library Association. (2010). Together for learning: School libraries and the emergence of the learning commons. Toronto. Retrieved from https://www.accessola.org/Documents/OLA/Divisions/OSLA/TogetherforLearning.pdf

Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer (p. 242). New York: Basic Books.

Sawyer, R. K. (2006). The new science of learning (pp. 1–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sawyer, R. K. (2008). Optimizing learning: Implications of learning sciences research (pp. 45–62). Centre for Research and Innovation: OECD Publishing.

Schrum, L., Shelly, G., & Miller, R. (2008). Understanding tech-savvy teachers: Identifying their characteristics, motivation and challenges. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 1–20.

Shepherd, C. (2011). The new learning architect. Amazon Digital Services, Inc.: Onlignment.

Stuewe, N. (2013a). The Architect of Learning. In World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2013 (pp. 2117–2124). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Stuewe, N. (2013b). Unfamiliar Technology and the Architect of Learning. University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11023/612

Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change (p. 104). USA: CreateSpace.

Underhill, A. (1989). Process in humanistic education. ELT Journal, 43(4), 250–260. Retrieved from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/4/250.short

The Capacity of Story

John Dewey has left behind a story that I believe I might be able to re-introduce. In his story he told us that a participatory citizen requires a competence to tell and understand stories; also that we do not make it easy for students to learn, by making it difficult for teachers to learn. Participatory citizens in culture means it is possible for us to learn from the stories we tell each other. In culture there is no solo voice. “All human experience is social: it involves contact and communication” (Dewey, 1938, p. 38). Dewey would teach us that experience is a moving force, like a vine growing on top of itself.

Good teachers try to organize the conditions of experience for their students, they then allow their students to personalize their experience by re-tell their story in their own words. I would add that stories that teach, are re-created and co-constructed with each telling, in this way good teachers let the ‘experience’ be the teacher. Good teachers do not expect the future telling of a story with educative power to be the same as it was in the past telling. Teachers thus become the architects, designers or gardeners of learning rather than transmitters of a static finished product. Some call it lived experience.

Experience that educates (the story told in lived experience) is valued and judged by not only those remembering the event as the storyteller but also those who imagine themselves in the story as listeners. Stories that educate need to live. Dewey taught us that experience potentially is a teacher, but there will be no learning without the story of experience. How we access educative stories is dependent on our connection to each other, and our ability to listen is effected by our attentiveness to this connection. With our tools of technology we have built a structure around the earth. We live within it. As Marshal McLuhan (1968) expresses, the environment has become a technological thing. Nature is not separate or at war with technology, both are included in this environment. Our tools not only extend our humanity but also have become a place we live and connect. Good or bad we are now connected in a more powerful way. “We're just increasing our humanness and our ability to connect to each other regardless of geography" Case 2010. This technological environment is just helping us behave more ‘human-like’ in our storytelling ways. As humans, whether in an artist, scientist, or storyteller mode, it is unwise to disconnect from the tools we make, the value choices we make in their use and the experience we have with them.

We are a creative, curious, storytelling people. Should we think of stories as disconnected tools in teaching and learning or is it better to think of them as partners in learning? Can we really put down our creations once we have made them or do they come with us as we move in experiential learning? With this 'capacity' of story, what might happen if we make teachers storytellers? Could their story then become a teacher? What might happen if we bring together two voices that do not normally have common dialogue with each other, such as teachers and school reformers? What might I learn if I place myself between them?

This thinking was imagined while reading, “Letting Stories Breathe” by Arthur W. Frank and revisiting the following:

Case, A. (2011). We are all cyborgs now | Video on TED.com. TED Talk, . Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/amber_case_we_are_all_cyborgs_now.html

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY, USA: Kappa Delta Pi.

McLuhan, M., and Mailer, N. (1968). Debate on CBC Television, . Retrieved from http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5470443898801103219#

Philosophy of Technology: Tool?

I have just received my candidacy questions. The following is my first attempt to write about what my philosophy of technology is in response to one of them. Have you taken the time to write about yours yet? I hope this might get you thinking:
My task today is to construct my own story of understanding and share it with you in the hopes that it might echo with your own story of experience. To do this as Ihde (2004) explains, we need to not just ‘study’ philosophy but to also ‘do’ philosophy. It is more than compiling facts into bits and pieces. We need to think deeply and organize these bits critically for ourselves, then we need to talk to each other so we can reorganize the new bits.
So as I begin to unpack the philosophy of technology as it is packaged for me, at first I see a paradox or a double edge sword. It is common to hear people speak of hope and possibilities with technology while others speak of danger and warnings. The good or bad uses of technology. As John Dewey points out, “Mankind likes to think in terms of extreme opposites” (1938, p. 17). Yet initially most of us see technology as a neutral tool to extend human capacity. Simplistically we believe that it is a means to end human suffering. If the technology isn’t working it is because we need to get better at using it. We should not question the technocrats because they know more than us.
I wonder If I am going to discuss technology from the standpoint of a tool I need to go deeper into my philosophy of technology, my philosophy of teaching and learning, as well as my philosophy of educational technology.
Before I began my doctoral studies I never thought much about philosophy, let alone my philosophy of technology. Even with a masters degree in Educational Technology I largely took for granted my philosophy of all things technological. My thinking at the time was that philosophy was a subject, something people paid money to study at university. My philosophy of technology was something either invisible or just out of focus for me. I never felt capable or even invited to do so nor did I have a place to do it.
To begin, is technology in the classroom a tool? Is it an applied science? Is it a system of correlated means and ends? For that matter can we call it a place? At first glance the term tool implies a neutrality. Meaning that technology is simply a human invention that may be used in good or bad ways. But who must take responsibility in how it is used, maintained, and repaired when broken? Are the tools of technology really separate from us and what we value? Using and choosing technology for a purpose is a specific value choice in itself is it not. I do not believe we can understand technology by looking at how it functions.
If it is an applied science then it is a human activity. This might also indicate a neutrality. Is technology something we go out and do?
If it is a system then we can think of it as a pattern. Patterns do not exist in isolation. Hardware can hardly function without it’s human, and humans must learn how to operate the hardware. Are people and their technology not connected in a system somehow? Do we learn from technology, learn with technology or learn in technology? What is it we mean when we say as teachers we want to create a learning environment?
Perhaps it is a little of all of these things, the use of technology given the choice of how to use it becomes more than just a means ‘to’ an end. Rather it becomes a means through which we might relate and participate with the world. I write this blog you might respond. In this case technology may be thought of as a place. Feenberg (1999) and Franklin (1999) have used the metaphor of a house, “The house is not a devise but an extremely rich and meaningful life environment” (p. xi). In our houses we have many tools that we use to help us enjoy life and connect to each other. The tools of technology have built a structure around us. He continues, “That the real world of technology is a network, not a system, but a network that encompasses a system within it” (2008, p. 22).
I believe philosophy is a personal way of thinking about and acting in the world that we wonder about. For that matter it is something we are all capable of doing to some extent. I think that it is important the I participant with my philosophy as I come to understand it, as nothing really seems to become visible until we take the time to intentionally interact with it. I am drawn to this wonder in the hope of creating wisdom. So for this purpose I wish to use the expression “go native”(Ihde, 2004, p. 91) with my philosophy of technology to become an informed participant in a more global (wide angle) discussion of it.
I believe all teachers have a philosophy of technology but not many have taken the time or been given the space to think deeply about how and why they use technology in their classrooms and personal life. Often they are told they just have to. It shows up in how they allow their students to interact with technology and the language they use.
More will follow in the coming days...

References:
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY, USA: Kappa Delta Pi.

Dusek, V. (2006). Philosophy of technology: An introduction. London: Blackwell. Retrieved from http://books.google.ca/books?id=Iy7o0tPVMJgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=val+dusek&source=bl&ots=72KdashwIt&sig=vod7OVgSE78zE5pSEkaw_D3uFb4&hl=en&ei=T-yHTPqtI5OesQPRyoygCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CC4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Feist, R., Beauvais, C., & Shukla, R. (2010). Technology and the changing face of humanity. Ottawa, Ontario: University of Ottawa Press.

Franklin, U. M. (1999). The real world of technology. CBC Massey Lectures (2004th ed.). Toronto: House of Anansi Press Inc.

Ihde, D. (2004). Philosophy of technology. In P. Kemp (Ed.), World and Worldhood (pp. 91-108). Printed in the Netherlands: Springer.

Just what is school for any way?

What is school for in the 21st century and what do we ask of its teachers? On one hand, we have aspects of our society craving higher standards, with a deep need to be more efficient about collecting data that proves growth. This side tends to seek technocratic solutions to its questions and technology is a means towards an end. Yet, at the same time school curriculum is asking teachers to make a fundamental shift in their practice from a teacher centred delivery of content to a more generative, collaborative exploration into content. This shift requires a major adjustment of the traditional power relationship between teacher and student. This side tends to seek democratic solutions to its questions; technology can be used to connect us. As a classroom teacher, I find myself uncomfortably squeezed between the two. Do teachers find themselves trapped in a paradoxical profession? Do we as a society have a clear request of its teachers or has teaching in the 21st century become so complex we are confused?
If explanations contain the seeds for solutions, can I as a researcher explain for the world the some of the complexities of the 21st century classroom, as teachers try to be responsive to all learners?

Thinking, creating, and invention?

Imagine teaching and learning as an environment or a place with rooms to play, and in this place picture the focal point being thinking, creating, and invention? Could we then think of technology as being the medium for this work?

Marshal McLuhan (1967) alerted my generation of a shift of philosophy four decades ago. “The environment as a processor of information is propaganda. Propaganda ends where dialogue begins. You must talk to the media, not the programmer” (p.142). What I gather from this wisdom is that if I want to understand what is happening in education with regard to technology I must dialogue with teachers not the system they work in.

Perhaps why we struggle with this philosophy might be because our culture and school system as deep roots the industrial model and the philosophy of technology as an instrument. With it’s focus on data driven productivity, accountability and efficiency. In this place, teachers have had little choice then to break knowledge into packages; teaching then became the supplying of this information while learning in turn became the mastering of this information. In this place, there was a need to standardize in order to measure how effective teachers were being. This sort of system appeared to be functioning when we thought of information as being in short supply. However, in today’s information rich world this is less than effective. So how do we achieve this shift of philosophy?
The first step in any solution is coming to an understanding of the place the problem lives. I wish to arrive at an understanding dialogically by engaging together with teachers as a means of thinking and reflecting on the daily complexities in the classroom and experiences in the contexts of a shared social and moral traditions. I wish to have my dialogue with teachers in a deliberate and democratic manner. In this case, I wish to put my own understanding at risk and to leave myself open to possibilities.
Jourard (1978) as a voice from the past cautions, “The crisis of our time is not shortage of food, space, and energy; it is the failure of dialogue”. This makes me think not much has really changed. He describes education as a dialogue. “It is an invitation for someone, living or dead, to engage in a process which enlarges one’s perspective”. He says it implies a capacity to imagine, or "tune in to the reality of what is being said, the phenomenological reality of the speaker’s world”. Dialogue calls us to listen and to speak a truth in response. He says this sharing is not the imposing of ones own ideas on to another as I have often seen done in many situations where teachers have been asked to infuse technology in their practice. Further, he reminds us that in education everything depends upon the educators’ beliefs about who their pupils are and who they can become. Can we not also think of teachers as learners themselves? How often do we ask who do teachers believe themselves to be? (p.47). These words inspire me. In his words, “education is concerned with discovering and calling forth those human potentialities deemed valuable for life” (p. 48). “To really listen, we need to still the chronic noise of our mind, which always labels and categorizes what the world is and what we are” (p. 50). While my research will not just be about listening to teacher’s it will be a requirement of it. He reminds us that reading is also a listening as well as a looking, tasting, feeling, and smelling. All of this is just part of hearing what the world of teaching is and what it is like.

Jourard, S. M. (1978). Education as dialogue. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 18(1), 47.

McLuhan, M., & Fiore, Q. (1967). The medium is the massage. New York: Bantam Books.

Technology and Democracy

I have made it known that I have an emerging understanding of philosophy, because of this I have been unhurriedly reading through Gadamer’s “Truth and Method” as well as Andrew Feenberg’s “Questioning Technology”. I have found myself taking many side trips in order to give myself a more knowledgeable position to take all of this in. One thing I do understand well now is that we live in the world not as independently as we might think. The voices of those who came before us hum quietly almost unheard to many. We call this tradition and if we are not mindful we are in danger of just singing the same song through time with no thought of the consequence. Feenberg points out a rather pessimistic tradition of technology (p. 75). The thinking that humans have simply become cogs in their own machinery. He highlights for me the term, Technocracy. A social system viewing technology as a neutral instrument outside of our control, leaving no room for democracy or social interaction.
I have recently spent time exploring the 20th century’s use of technology as a read only culture in the early days of my blogging (mind map ). Yes it is complicated as you can see.

Feenberg brings to light Max Weber and the theory of rationalization, a process whereby social actions and interactions became concerned with efficiency and how it can be measured quantifiably rather than how effects us as people or how we feel about it emotionally. It seems to me that in the modern world of the 20th century people with this thinking lost the connection we had to each other as humans. Gadamer also reminds us that as humans we need to find gaps in our speaking in order to listen to each other. I have spent time thinking about this last fall. You can find this work on my webpage. For me that is the notion of a read-write culture, a culture in dialogue with each other. As Feenberg puts it we need to replace this notion with a, “Democratic” rationalization. In the read only culture that Max Weber was describing we put our faith in progress. Technology is only considered social through the purpose is serves and this would depend on ones personal perception of the purpose. This deterministic view holds that if need be we adjust ourselves to the structure of technology not the other way around (p. 77). Ouch I feel the pinch!

Constructivism argues a different point. We have a choice here; we can look differently at efficiency. When we look at the toys that technology has provided for us rather than saying how can I adapt to this toy and make it work for me? Another way is to look upon this more democratically as a choice between alternatives. To look for a fit between devices and the personal interests and needs a user may have and we as users do definitely shape the design process (p.79). Look at the “I’m a Mac”, “I’m a PC” thing. Cute advertising yes but it demonstrates this point. Two different devices with different design histories shaped by different needs. Good designers respond the feedback of the users. Feenberg tells us that technological determinism ignores this social complexity by focusing in on a cross-section of objects in our life. Gadamer may say this sort of clarity is not enough for living knowledge.
This sort of view has led us to look at dilemmas in a rather simplistic dualistic manner in the form of trade offs. It’s the red vs. blue situation. If we have more of red then we have less of blue.

One altered notion is Connectivism. George Siemens describes it as: "the integration of principles explored by chaos, network, and complexity and self-organization theories. Learning is a process that occurs within nebulous environments of shifting core elements – not entirely under the control of the individual. Learning (defined as actionable knowledge) can reside outside of ourselves (within an organization or a database), is focused on connecting specialized information sets, and the connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowing" In our connected world we now have opportunities to think in a more nebulous way.
Feenberg’s writing fills me with hope. He suggests that technology can be more than a means to an end; we can look upon it as a variety of possibilities linked together. We do have choices.

Hope for the future

The Nature of Knowledge and the Philosophy of Technology

The post this week is a reflection of chapter one in 'Questioning Technology' by Andrew Feenberg. However it is deeply interwoven with the thoughts of Gadamer and my emerging notions of epistemological and ontological understanding. There is no running away from Gadamer now and there is no running away from my questions on teaching and learning. What is learning for? What is schooling for? Why do we teach? What is this nature of knowledge if we place it within a technological framework? When I say learning I mean purpose driven learning not memorization.
In this chapter Feenberg is really just sketching the main themes he intends to address in the book as a whole. However the chapter gradually brings in to focus in my mind that which was very much outside of my awareness just a short 7 months ago. I say gradually because nothing is sharply focused yet. Not long ago I remember saying out loud 'Technology has a philosophy?' Well doesn't everything that becomes real to you? So here I will attempt to lay this out on the floor to tip toe around for a minute:

I believe that philosophy is the study of the nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. What I call knowledge, reality and existence may not be what others call it.

With regards to epistemology and the nature of knowledge traditionally it has been thought of as the theory of knowledge associated with scientific-technological knowledge with regard to methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology can be thought of as an investigation that will distinguish a difference between justified belief and opinion. In this case reality leads to a single truth that maybe repeatable in order to be believed by others. For me this nature of knowledge just does not transfer to well from the lab to the complex world that I teach in. I can see how this approach works with memorization but not with the nebulous nature of purpose driven learning in the digital world?

However I have begun to understand ontology in a metaphysical way as a study of reality. My personal ontological view seems to be in line with philosophical hermeneutics as I understand it. I believe that understanding and what we believe to be reality is based on how we live and play in the world and therefore is in constant flux leading to more than one truth. So in my mind reality is a personal experience that we are capable of sharing through dialogue and language. So I wonder given this, are epistemology and ontology a dichotomy or just different windows to look through?

Historically we humans have not placed to much value in thinking about the technical. Feenberg reports that this goes back to the ancient Greeks who place a higher value on activity of the mind such as social, political and theoretical rather than activities of the hands. A view that I shared not long ago was treating technology as a neutral instrument and therefore did not require any kind of philosophical explanation or justification of its existence. In more recent times however we have a new notion of technology that is rooted in the idea of progress, freedom and happiness. Out of these two traditions form what Feenberg calls technological determinism. Technology's advance is the advance of the human species (p.2).

In opposition to this there is a tradition of protest against mechanization the most famous example is the luddites in the early nineteenth century. Feenberg refers to this as a substantive theory of technology. In this case technology may be viewed as an instrument but it is not neutral or free from values. In this case technological development transforms what it is to be human. This autonomous thinking naturally leads to fear of loss of control.
I am left to wonder what the thinking of knowledge is within a substantive or a determinist theory if technology is viewed as a tool. In fact Feenberg states that modernity is an epistemological event in which the essence of technology lives. Our drive for efficiency is linked to a rational method and a epistemological theory of understanding, as I quoted last week “Reason can be used to tear apart bad arguments and it can be used to apply universal principles to particular cases. But reason as an instrument of analysis on its own is uncreative. It is not an instrument of creativity or discovery. Reason can apply universal principles but it cannot discover them”(p.1)

Both determinism and substantivism view technology as an autonomous tool but what about those that see technology as humanly controllable? Feenberg briefly describes two other theories, instrumentalism and critical theory. I think it is on this side I think I place my hope for the future. It is on this side we find democratic control over the direction and definition of what progress is and intervention into technical affairs. It is also where we find social constructivism that lead to choices of alternative means-ends systems. I look forward to part two of his book that goes deeper into these theories.

Everything is amazing and no one is happy

Making sense of Questioning Technology

Making sense of Questioning Technology
by Andrew Feenberg
1999

This book is an introduction to the philosophy of technology. While I am a novice student of philosophy I was asked to think about this in the fall of 2008 and in response I co-created a Google Group with Barb Brown. I continue to have some struggles of my own as I adjust and navigate my way through this new territory. After looking at the topic with a rather wide lens I felt it was important for me to focus more deeply on what Andrew Feenberg had to say. He gives us a brief account of the growth of interest in technology. As a culture in the 20th century we became familiar with the notion of technology having an autonomous force separate from society. Two very separate camps began to form. Some took a rather pessimistic view and became concerned that technology seemed to have a life of it's own and would somehow run out of our control. I believe this notion lead people to write to stories of caution such as “2001 a Space Odyssey” and Martin Heidegger to write his essay on the question concerning technology. (I have read this essay but will write about it later.) While at the same time there was a push in our democratic society to expand our use of technology in our homes, schools and businesses. In both camps technology has been tied to the notion of progress.
Feenberg suggests that in the past our culture has looked upon the technical and the social as separate domains but that the fate of future democracy depends on us bridging the two. And that the fate of democracy is bound up with our understanding of technology. He feels that we need to challenge a essentialist philosophy of technology. The belief that technology has a set of characteristics that make what it is and reduces it to how it functions and its raw materials. This philosophy views technology as an instrument for efficiency.
I have just begun the first chapter entitled Technology, Philosophy, Politics. He begins by mapping out the territory of the philosophy of technology. Over time we have paid little attention to technology due largely to the technical being viewed as secondary to more intellectual pursues. In addition with the neutral notion of technology being an instrument society didn't really require and explanation or justification of it.
The other side of this map indicates the promise of technology. It is rooted in this idea of efficiency and carries with it a gift from the tradition of the scientific method. It is progressivism or rather technological determinism.
In opposition to this is a substance theory of technology, a protest against mechanization. In this view technology is not neutral and its spread is fearful. Potentially technological development transforms what it is to be human.
He mentions Langdon Winner and Carl Mitcham as further explanation of this thinking.