philosophy – Rachel Bronk's MET

Educational Technology

Rachel Bronk (2009)

“We need new methods of education which will leave the child’s mind open longer… methods which teach him that safety lies not in knowledge but in knowing what could be but is not known.”

Dr. Margaret Mead[1]

As a teacher, I observe the interactions between learners, teachers, education and technology and the rethinking of these interactions as dictated by innovations in educational technology. The field of both education and technology are constantly changing and as such, so is my philosophy of educational technology. However, a fundamental component of my changing philosophy is the belief that educational technology has great potential for shaping the way we learn, think and communicate; without being limited to any particular demographics. Given the prevalence of mainstream, accessible, media based educational technologies, I believe that the purpose of educational technology is to facilitate greater understanding of the world and greater communication between its students, revolutionizing the traditional way we view teaching and learning.
For me, educational technology is best defined as comprising of the media based tools through which we teach and learn. Educational technology must be approached not as a novelty but rather as a tool possessing great potential; potential that must be needs to be realized in order to be effective. Educational technology is much more than a superficial tool; it can have biases, limitations and extensions that must be considered before using it in the classroom. I believe that educational technology should be woven into the “multiliteracies” of the classroom rather than being treated as a foreign object and paraded out from time to time. Educational technology reaches its potential in the classroom by being integrated into everyday teaching and learning. The manner in which educational technology is used is greater than the tools themselves, and I believe that as teachers gain more knowledge about how to use these tools, they will be able to enhance the classroom experience for all learners.

I believe that it is imperative for all teachers to learn how to implement educational technology beyond basic mechanics, by learning the pedagogical foundations that should guide its use. Educational technology has the potential to increase accessibility for students with disabilities as well as provide a greater variety of formats by which students can present and learn information. This enhanced accessibility and appeal is not only at the core of my philosophy of educational technology, but also a fundamental component of my teaching philosophy. In working with students with learning disabilities, I have seen firsthand how educational technology has been the great equalizer for these students and their ability to learn as integrated members of the classroom.

Educational technology represents a cultural shift in our society and its increasing presence is indicative of a shift in teaching and learning practices. For better or for worse, educational technology is presenting teachers and students alike with unique opportunities to transcend the boundaries of space and time in order to access knowledge and supplement their understandings. Similarly, educational technology affords increased forums in which to communicate and receive feedback as well as present information in multimodal ways that appeal to various senses. Like a supernova, the Internet caused an explosion of a myriad of technological opportunities and in turn, forced the definitions of teaching, learning, technology and education to be redefined within these new parameters. However, unlike a supernova, these technological opportunities did not fade with time, but rather have increased in prevalence and have proven to be flexible and dynamic, making “traditional” teaching methods appear rigid and inflexible in their offerings. Like a diamond[2], I believe that educational technology is multi-faceted, requiring those who teach with it and learn from it to explore beyond its commercial appeal to realize its full potential.

Philosophy

Figure 1 – Realizing the potential of educational technology.

[1] Mead, M. (1955). Cultural patterns and technical change. New York: Mentor.

[2] See Figure 1

I’m going to admit that the concrete thinker in me has always been terrified of philosophy and I have successfully avoided having to address it until now! I found Heidegger’s article difficult to digest and I had to really go outside of my normal thinking patterns to begin to understand what he was saying. I thought I would address the question “Is there a connection between points in Heidegger’s The Question Concerning Technology and Baudrillard’s notions of simulacra?”…. not because I think I have any definitive answers, but because I can start to see some connections and I thought perhaps others would be able to expand upon them. My disclaimer is that anything I know about Baudrillard, I learned from Wikipedia 😉 The immediate (superficial) connection I made between Baudrillard’s notions of simulacra and Heideggers thoughts is the existence of a fourfold:

Heidegger – 1) causa materialis 2) causa formulis 3) causa finalis 4) causa efficiens

Baudrillard – 1) basic reflection of reality 2) perversion of reality 3) pretence of reality 4) simulacrum (no relation to reality)

There are parallels between each corresponding stage of the fourfold , in particular, the fourth stage. Heidegger stages that causa efficiens is the catalyst that brings about the effect that is the finished product – in the case of a chalice, the causa efficiens is the silversmith. However, in the case of a concept (not an inanimate concept) what then is the causa efficiens? Is it created by the collective users/knowers of the concept? Baudrillard says that simulacra is not a copy of what is real but rather becomes a truth in its own right. So maybe this is the connection to Heidegger’s causa efficiens… I’m a little over my head here… any other thoughts?