Heidegger (340-341)
Thus questioning, we bear witness to the crisis that in our sheer preoccupation with technology we do not yet experience the essential unfolding of technology, that in our sheer aesthetic-mindedness we no longer guard and preserve the essential unfolding of art. Yet the more questioningly we ponder the essence of technology, the more mysterious the essence of art becomes.
The closer we come to the danger, the more brightly do the ways into the saving power begin to shine and the more questioning we become. For questioning is the piety of thought.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Revealing---
It sounds as though Kelly may agree with Heidegger (318-9) in our role as the "inventors." In chapter seven, "Convergence," Kelly illustrates that many great inventions and discoveries were determind and devised at nearly parallel moments in history. These include Darwin and Wallace with natural discovery, the lightbulb, the thermometer, and others....(I wonder if we could find the same with the computer 'mouse' with a Mr. Jobs and a Mr. Gates?)
In this sense, then, we have no control over what comes next in the technology 'genealogical tree,' but we don see what happens with those who receive credit for discovering or inventing it first! In other words, the inventor is just the one who is the first to "reveal" the technology to the world, yet he is only able to do so as the Technium itself progresses.
In this sense, then, we have no control over what comes next in the technology 'genealogical tree,' but we don see what happens with those who receive credit for discovering or inventing it first! In other words, the inventor is just the one who is the first to "reveal" the technology to the world, yet he is only able to do so as the Technium itself progresses.
"...being responsible and being indebted"
On page 316 of the except, Heidegger talks of being "responsible and being indebted." I know that he addresses the need to avoid misinterpretations, but the phrasing makes we wonder. It is my question as to whether we are responsible for technology and Kelly's Technium, responsible to it, or even indebted to or by technology and the Technium. The critical question may lie in the prespositions (and my high school students would groan at that). Did we create it and are we responsible for it? I guess that is the question we face when looking at the manner in which our developed technologies have impacted the earth and the resources around us. Are we responsible for the damage being done to the planet due to our excess refuse and toxic waste? Or do we rest blissfully in the knowledge that the detritus is due to the Technium, over which may may not ever have had any control (maybe I am taking some of Kelly's statements a bit too far here?).
On the other hand, are we now indebted to technology and the Technium and are only able to move at its whim and within the demands and limitations it puts on us? Are we now indentured servants who have been brought into the age of information by the Technium and now must pay in the many labors now demanded of us by the technology surrounding us?
I know that I am being a bit cynical and may be responding in a semi-extremist manner, but I wonder if we have failed in what the Amish have succeeded -- allowing ourselves the power of adopting technology or rejecting it.
In terms of education, I think that we may be failing to retain any semblance of control over technology. In my school district, we are installing SmartBoard Interactive White Boards (IWB's) in each classroom. We have been able to do this because we successfully marketed a bond proposal which promised this technology for each teaching space and now we are locked in, as the the funds cannot be put to any other use. But, are IWB's the best way to teach all subjects to all kids? Is it the best method for each teacher to use? Are some teachers possibly more effective without the IWB technology than with it? Those questions are not explicitly asked nor answered, yet rhetoric being used in my district hint toward evaluating teachers on the basis of how well they incorporate the IWB technology.
Please understand, I believe that we still are in a position to USE technology more than it uses us, but we need to use the Amish adoption method before we leap into a technology that may or may not be a viable tool for some, all or maybe none of the teachers to whom it is being given (or forced upon, according to some of my colleagues.)
My apologies...I think that I may have ranted, but I want to teach myself, my children and my students to exercise as much control over their lives as they possibly can -- and sometimes that means not being the first- or even early-adopters, but sometimes waiting for a technology to "prove itself" and then incorporating it rather than completely reworking our methods to suit its possibilities....
On the other hand, are we now indebted to technology and the Technium and are only able to move at its whim and within the demands and limitations it puts on us? Are we now indentured servants who have been brought into the age of information by the Technium and now must pay in the many labors now demanded of us by the technology surrounding us?
I know that I am being a bit cynical and may be responding in a semi-extremist manner, but I wonder if we have failed in what the Amish have succeeded -- allowing ourselves the power of adopting technology or rejecting it.
In terms of education, I think that we may be failing to retain any semblance of control over technology. In my school district, we are installing SmartBoard Interactive White Boards (IWB's) in each classroom. We have been able to do this because we successfully marketed a bond proposal which promised this technology for each teaching space and now we are locked in, as the the funds cannot be put to any other use. But, are IWB's the best way to teach all subjects to all kids? Is it the best method for each teacher to use? Are some teachers possibly more effective without the IWB technology than with it? Those questions are not explicitly asked nor answered, yet rhetoric being used in my district hint toward evaluating teachers on the basis of how well they incorporate the IWB technology.
Please understand, I believe that we still are in a position to USE technology more than it uses us, but we need to use the Amish adoption method before we leap into a technology that may or may not be a viable tool for some, all or maybe none of the teachers to whom it is being given (or forced upon, according to some of my colleagues.)
My apologies...I think that I may have ranted, but I want to teach myself, my children and my students to exercise as much control over their lives as they possibly can -- and sometimes that means not being the first- or even early-adopters, but sometimes waiting for a technology to "prove itself" and then incorporating it rather than completely reworking our methods to suit its possibilities....
Heidegger -- Oh my...
Ok...So I read Heidegger back in the winter semester of 1993(!) in the second semester of my undergraduate career. And I think that I 'got it' then, but I am not so sure that I 'get it' today....
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Adolescent Lit
I agree that finding quality lit for our young readers is important, but the problem that I have is that great literature is not always so exciting for the first few chapters as the authors sets the tone, etc for the piece. The issue is that so many students are used to being hooked on a story line by the first commercial break rather than working though the opening pages of a book.
I have had students tell me that the book is 'boring' after only reading the first paragraph (sometimes that is at most). So--- I read to them....And they need that so they learn to interpret and determine meaning from the phrases and sentences which are streaming past their eyes....
I just don't know sometimes.... and in the reading of this piece, I wondered if we are allowing time for them to read -- after all, my own children are often so busy that they cannot stay awake when they finally get to sit down at home.
Aargh...interrupted again, sorry.
I have had students tell me that the book is 'boring' after only reading the first paragraph (sometimes that is at most). So--- I read to them....And they need that so they learn to interpret and determine meaning from the phrases and sentences which are streaming past their eyes....
I just don't know sometimes.... and in the reading of this piece, I wondered if we are allowing time for them to read -- after all, my own children are often so busy that they cannot stay awake when they finally get to sit down at home.
Aargh...interrupted again, sorry.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
CCS-
So I wanted to write CCC beacuase I love acronyms and the Civilian Conservation Core....but I can't help but wonder and think about discovery. I don't really feel any discover in these standards -- even though they seem to be pretty broad and I have a little chart which puts them side by side with the MI HS content expectations -- "The Huskies....as my colleagues like to say...."
Anyway, back to discovery -- I think that we may be treating English Language Arts too much as a catch-all (speaking, multi-media, etc.... ) as well as too seriously. I can't really say what I fully mean by the idea of taking it too seriously, but I think that we need to begin to learn to learn again. Less focus on subject area and more on learning -- I want to open a Socratic institute.... Hmm.... But can it work for the jaded kid who has already been taught to hate school?
Anyway, back to discovery -- I think that we may be treating English Language Arts too much as a catch-all (speaking, multi-media, etc.... ) as well as too seriously. I can't really say what I fully mean by the idea of taking it too seriously, but I think that we need to begin to learn to learn again. Less focus on subject area and more on learning -- I want to open a Socratic institute.... Hmm.... But can it work for the jaded kid who has already been taught to hate school?
Assessing --
Wow...this is old already, but I really appreciate that Hillocks addresses that we do so much whining,yet we capitulate to the stance that we all 'teach to the test' -- at least in one way or another. I think that what I am most bothered by -- and I see in my own school -- is that "writing assessment drives instruction" (64). That is clear and needs to be so as we are evaluated by those scores, but I worry that it will take voice and tone out of writing. All writing needs then to be 'The Same' in some fashion. No longer will individualism in style, content, voice and even rhetorical grammar be allowed and we are condoning it. Hillocks goes through a number of very significant and important questions to consider, but his audience is already sold on the matter -- instead, we need the legislators (who may not be savvy regarding all that education entails even though they set policy and funding) to listen to more than just the test writing companies. So how do we get communities to take back control of their schools and dictate more.
The standardization of the GLOBE is bothering me, but we seem to be losing any sense of regionalism and culturalism -- to me it feels a little like the 1984 situation -- certainly not to that extreme yet -- maybe?
So, I guess what I want to see is the resurgence of the local school that is founded on the children and adults of that community. This school could focus on the needs of its own community members and therefore may direct its curriculum toward whatever its members may need. I don't know that any "national" standards are truly necessary. Instead, I wonder if this might give more rise to local concern, pride, initiative and less emphasis on the answers all coming from the top down. Of course, this would require a change in National Education law and funding changes --
The standardization of the GLOBE is bothering me, but we seem to be losing any sense of regionalism and culturalism -- to me it feels a little like the 1984 situation -- certainly not to that extreme yet -- maybe?
So, I guess what I want to see is the resurgence of the local school that is founded on the children and adults of that community. This school could focus on the needs of its own community members and therefore may direct its curriculum toward whatever its members may need. I don't know that any "national" standards are truly necessary. Instead, I wonder if this might give more rise to local concern, pride, initiative and less emphasis on the answers all coming from the top down. Of course, this would require a change in National Education law and funding changes --
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)