>> I think that we all can see that computers are not a panacea,
>
> Phillip Allen White wrote:
All too often I do find those espousing the use of computers in
>school as saying just that. Example: Roger C. Shank - "Engines for
>education" (1995), p. 67. "Although the Progressive movement acknowledged
>the importance of students controlling their own learning, it had no way
>to create an environment that would allow such self-management to occur.
>The computer has the power to change all this."
>
> This statement, for me, reveals a terrible epistemological failure
>- a terrible misunderstanding of how institutions are constructed as
>demonstrated by CHAT. I'm really not sure - foucaultian that I am - that
>power is exercised in artifacts.
>
>I need some footnoting on this reply. Is CHAT an acronym for
cultural-historical-activity-theory? I've never seen this before...
I agree with your view on Shank's statement. The problem with it is he says
that in the pre-computer days the school system "had NO way to create an
environment." Of course they did and have all along. To gain control of my
learning, I used to spend time in the middle of the school year looking over
my papers from the early part of the year. Also, my (good) teachers used to
talk to me about my progress, making explicit to me the trajectory of my
learning. I never felt that a teacher's frank appraisal of my work undercut
my ability to "control" my own learning. Rather, it empowered me more
because it gave me other ways, sometimes more efficient ways, of clarifying
my goals. The difference with the computer is that it makes these monitoring
processes more accessible. I can simply click on a file icon rather than
rifling through a messy file in the bottom drawer...
Also, please refresh my memory on Foucault. I had him pegged as a critical
theorist, someone who points out how cultural artifacts often shape our
activities according to the priorities of Big Brother...It's easy to see how
canned game software could be viewed this way (and, to some extent, hardware
-- think of all the nonsense caused by inefficiencies built into Microsoft's
and Apple's computers...) but, in general, I find that tool software is more
flexible. I've been amazed how, as I've become more proficient with
computers, I've "discovered" uses for my computer that the programmers put
in there for me long ago. I think this discovery process is an example of
the flexibility of the tool. No one was forcing me to use the computer in a
particular way. I discovered a need, then I started searching the computer
for a function that would satisfy it. I feel very much "in control" of my
learning in this scenario, and I'm actually grateful to the programmers who
anticipated my needs. I don't see them as "controlling" me in a negative
way, but assisting me.
Louise Yarnall
>