Using Alex's definition of teachers as "Knowlege Workers", I know one thing - it is not my vision to teach this way. By neccessity, teachers need to be creative and use new technologies to do so.
But using technology in the classroom assumes a few things: kids need to have access to technology, most importantly, at home. Learning to use technology requires time, above and beyond free periods at school, beyond signing out media tools from libraries. Forgive me for not referencing this, but I read one estimation that 82% of kids have technology at home. I don't have data to support this, but I would argue that the real estimations for rural and/or poor students is considerably lower.
Per Alex's 9/13 post: The knowlege worker "...Establish[es] ideological identities: along with other cultural institutions--media, family, church,, etc.--education articulates our cultural identities through repeated hailing as boy, as girl, as white or black, as smart or dumb, as rich or poor, etc"
I would argue that using technology in the classroom has the propensity to label kids in the same way. I've experienced labeling first hand in ENG506 to my benefit - it's sensitized me to what poor, rural, or tech unsavy kids go through when they get into a class that incorporates use of technology. Consider the following labels:
Having left a lucrative career and husband, I am poor (which is relative to kids whose parents often don't have money to buy groceries, and believe me, they're out there!) In ENG506, I need to use technology; my mastery of tech is part of my evaluation. But to gain mastery, I need a mac, a microphone, a new camera, a video camera, and a usb key. All of these things are "cheap". Cheap is relative, though. I'M POOR.
The rural issue is another thing I identify with: computer resources in rural communities are limitted. Many kids can't get to computers available in the communities d/t transportation issues. The Tioga Co. Boys and Girls club is a prime example. The county is sprawled out with no public transportation. Kids who live in town can walk to the club after school to use computers, but if you live in the country, you can't access that resource. I have a very nice Dell in my home, but if I have to work on macs, think of me as a kid without a computer. I have to go to the lab. The only lab available to me that works is ... in Cortland. Like a rural kid without a computer, transportation becomes an issue. I'M RURAL.
Also, using technology in the classroom implies a basic working knowlege of computers. Do English teachers who use blogs, for example, spend time teaching kids basic skills of navigating the web? Of clicking and pasting code? Or are we assuming they have these skills? You might argue that every kid knows how to surf... but I would guess there are those that don't. ENG506 assumes I know basic things. I'm glad we're backtracking now - a true example of creative teaching - but for those teachers who don't, there is the most repulsive label of all: I'M DUMB.
As educators, we need to have a great sensitivity to the relative situations of our students, acknowlege the gliches, and trouble shoot before we implement technologies. Otherwise, students who aren't rich, urban and smart develop learned apathy, and fall through the cracks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Just a brief correction Tamara..."knowledge worker" is Friedman's phrase. Alex's take on it an interpretation. Note we disagree on that interp. KES
You're absolutely right Tamara that ideological hailing occurs in the technology classroom as easily as it occurs in a traditional one. That's not the point I was making.
My point is that if we imagine the teacher-student relationship primarily as the expert/non-expert relationship, then we place the teacher in the category of professions that can be outsourced, along with other experts (lawyers, engineers, etc.), leaving deskilled classroom workers in their place. Instead, it is necessary to imagine teaching in the category of the creative professional.
This switch to creative professional does not necessarily have any connection with technology.
In the passage you cite, my point is, regardless of how you construct the teacher, one of the primary functions of schooling is the interpolation of students into cultural identities.
I would say this process is unavoidable. The question, for teachers, is how you work within this context.
Tamara,
Just to address one point; I have a problem with your label of "I'm DUMB." I know that it seems overwhelming that our students often know more than us, but do we need to always have more mastery of information than do our students? I think that having students lead lessons on technology use would be incredibly empowering for them and would also help the teacher to learn along with his/her students. I would hate for someone to think of me as dumb simply because I have never been exposed to all of this new technology. It'll take time, but we'll all get at least some of it in the end...
Nat
Post a Comment