Lester Faigley: "Beyond Imagination: The Internet and Global Digital Literacy" (7)
| "How does education change for a child who begins school with the potential to communicate with millions of other children and adults, to publish globally, and to explore the largest library ever assembled?" (131) |
Faigley begins this article by depicting multiple ways the Internet is portrayed in an optimistic, potentially groundbreaking manner—from rural children given new opportunities of learning to innovative ways to save employee time and effort. Behind this, though, is the lingering suspicion that underfunded schools will not be able to keep up or to even offer their students the technology they need to keep up. If needed, is private or corporate funding of educational technology a viable or ethical choice for those who otherwise would be left behind in cyberspace?
Although the Internet is deemed essential and invaluable for education, what is driving this opinion? Faigley reminds us that “similar pronouncements were issued by advocates of cable television in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They envisioned two-way interactive systems that would facilitate political participation, improve education, and overcome social isolation” (134). The same could be said for the Internet.
The key lies in teaching students to differentiate between information they gather on the Internet—without this critical analyzing ability, students are lost in the sheer amount of information and options available to them. Faigley equates the Internet to a “metropolis of tribes, each with a different view of reality” (135). This is an interesting metaphor to help students understand the multiplicity inherent in the Internet, one that will of necessity make them gauge information quality.
However, one element within the educational process does not change—the importance of a thought-filled, theorizing teacher. Faigley challenges teachers to analyze their own thinking about the relationship between technology, offering these questions for review:
“'What do we want students to learn?' 'What is the best environment for learning. . . how people learn best?'” (137). The technologically savvy teacher realizes the social, political, and cognitive implications of the tools she uses and applies relevant contextual aspects. This, as Faigley says, is a saving grace of our profession—“we’re not irrelevant. And that’s our big advantage in the long run” (139).
Faigley also describes characteristics of successful classroom technology implementation—students collaborating on student-centered activities that span a wide geographic range, teachers working in smaller classes with abundant technical and pedagogical training/support. This is definitely an ideal situation, one that many groups may not be able to afford or achieve. It is in these situations that private/corporate sponsorship of technology becomes an issue. Although Faigley addresses this issue, he does not give pat answers to this ethically involved question. Instead, he gives us broad questions to consider in light of our own contextually bound use and need for technology.
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 |
7 8 9 10 11 12 |
13 14 15 16 17 18 |
19 20 21 22 23 |
Contents |
