Generally, debates are two sided with dialogue arguing the benefits of one side and the detriments of the other. Historically, this thesis versus antithesis has been used to find a synthesis that can be compromisingly agreed upon by both sides. However, paradigm shifts occur when a third view is presented that is neither a synthesis nor compromise among opposing views. Rather, the third view theory I am discovering lifts us out of the quagmire of debate and places us in a whole new universe of possiblities. Here’s what I mean…
The use of new technologies in education has its two sides consisting of opponents and proponents. The technophobes oppose. The technofascists propose. And in between are any number of compromising solutions. And so continues the debate along varying lines of whether or not, how much, when, where, with what age group, etc, etc. But it turns out that the debate has fostered a disconnect with the present generation of students who can’t relate to either side because technology is not something objective to their identity and so is not viewed as a threat. Hence, the third view is that of the culture of uncertainty facing an unknown future where technology is as much a part of their identity as their hand, foot, Avatar, social network, and MP3 device with customized collections. Do you see my point? (If not, you may need to view my other posts re: Cyborg Learning Theory to get the full import).
The technophobes see technology (Avatars, social networks, MP3 devices, etc) as other and therefore fear the unknown. The technofascists see technology as other ALSO! The difference is, one side embraces and the other shuns. But NEITHER is relevant to the culture being educated today and so the debate is meaningless, irrelevant, and a senseless contradiction. Is it any wonder there is a disconnect in schools between the students and the teachers? The third view is the Cyborg (cybernetic organism) view that sees no disparity between technology and identity. Teachers who understand this can connect with their students and lead them into a future unknown yet brimming with excitement and possibilities.
My current research illustrates this secret of the third view clearly. The prevailing debate over the use of technology within the education arena centers on three main components:
- Hardware (including infrastructure and bandwidth issues)
- Access to technology among those of low socioeconomic status
- Professional development of teachers to use technology in the classroom
These outcries already assume technology is useful for standard’s based learning when in fact, there is little research to support this. The third view is needed to refocus our attention. Rather than spend millions upgrading hardware, incurring huge infrastructure costs, and training teachers, we should spend the money on concentrated research to determine the value if any of new technologies that can aide standard’s based learning.
Thus far the research has proven that new technologies increase engagement, interest, excitement, etc. but no one is showing us whether standard’s based learning is actually taking place more effectively over the traditional approach. And where I would love to support the increased use of technology in the classroom, I believe we are putting the cart before the horse by spending so much time and money on toys without first knowing exactly how we can increase real learning with their use. (posted 3/29/09)
