Big changes in technology creates the perfect context to answer old questions that we thought were answered. What is education? What is the future we want? What are the implications and consequences in the society?

As we have seen this week, multiliteracies and digital education is one of these changes that offer the opportunity to discuss and develop research in the field. With the use of new technologies, we are in a new paradigma where content breaks the rule of hierarchy and unidirectional. As professor Mary Kalantzis points in the video Multimodal Meaning, Part 3A: What’s New About Digital T:

One of the most powerful outcomes of digital ecologies is the actual capacity to manufacture different modes of meaning, with the same manufactury units.

Researching more information about this week's topic, I came across with this article of Hamilton and Friesen (2013) claiming to incorporate a constructivist to have a better reading of the context.

I feel very attracted for this perspective, because as the authors, I think is the only perspective that drives to have more interesting question.

In a possible world where the interaction of humans and machines is beyond a humanistic perspective, what is the purpose of education? Why/what do we need to teach to our children? Are we educating future workers or future citizens? Education is only a place where we park children while adults are working?

In the literature reviewed in Hamilton and Freisen’s 2013 article, numerous studies employing a range of perspectives agree technologies can be beneficial for students’ learning. However, the authors argue, despite the influx of technology in education, it has had a negligible impact on pedagogies. They judge the results of studies which employ largely instrumentalist and essentialist perspectives to be flawed due to a limited understanding of the interrelatedness of social needs and technology.

Clearly, when there is significant evidence highlighting the merits of online learning, their challenge to a widely held viewpoint at first appears unfounded, indeed, they presented little empirical evidence to support their rebuttals. Unsurprisingly, some universities adopt a disinterest in research which critiques favourable research results in online education, especially when financial pressures continue to increase amidst difficult political and economic conditions. These pressures have continued to rise since 2013 as conditions have reduced the inclination of home and international students to study; therefore, an unchallenging stance rather conveniently solves a funding crisis. However, constructivist perspectives pose pertinent questions about the design of technological tools. It is essential to examine the purpose of technology, along with other questions, such as, “Who does it serve? How is it used? Who does it exclude and include?” to make quantifiable progress, and to inform the design process of technological tools in education. As to why it is important to employ a perspective which questions the use and design of technological tools is to acknowledge that technology should be subject to continual review, redevelopment and redesign, which can further impact its use in society. Groeger’s brief blog article ‘Discrimination by Design’ (2016) gives examples of how decisions made by designers can have potentially discriminative effects on people and communities.

The Hamilton’s article presents clear reasons and arguments to introduce a constructivist view. This is something that I agree with the authors. However, I would like to know some benefits of essentialism and instrumentalism. I believe that research in this perspective offers some opportunities of learning and it answers interesting questions. Even though the article does not give much credit, I think I have learned that essentialism and instrumentalism perspective also need to be taken in account, and essentially understand when someone is basing their arguments from those perspectives.

After watching and reading the materials of this week, and doing some extra research. My main concerns about the application of multiliteracies are about resources. I wondered about other possible reasons, such as lack of technical knowledge on the part of the educational community. As a community Are we ready to introduce it in our class? Teachers have the skills or, enough support to learn these new skills, required to be the guides that students need in these new sphera?

At the end of the day we have teachers reproducing one more time what they have learnt in the way they were taught. And we have students learning with outdated strategies. It doesn’t matter how good and proved are the benefits. I feel there is not enough resources to apply it. The example of the volcano is great, I really think that students are capable of producing amazing content using multiliteracies. It is amazing to see how they use Minecraft or TikTok, where a lot of video producing skills are required. I just feel that they don’t do the connection at class, somehow, many learners don’t think they can use those strategies in a formal education space.

----

References:

Brown, T. & Lyle, J. (2018). Touch Screen Technology: Implementing a Technologically Enhanced Profiling System for Student Sport Coaches. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. 44 (3): 2 – 25.

Groeger, L.V. (2016). Discrimination by Design. Online [Propublica] 1/09/2016. Available at: https://www.propublica.org/article/discrimination-by-design Accessed on 27/01/2019.

Hamilton, C.E. & Friesen, N. (2013). Online Education: A Science and Technology Studies Perspective. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. 39 (2): 1 – 21