It's really quite remarkable how the notion of "catching a wave" has passed from the tiny world of surf culture (as captured in the lyrics of the Beach Boys song "Catch a Wave", referenced in the title of this post) into common usage. But it is indeed a very apt metaphor. In order to successfully surf a wave, you have to catch at at just the right moment. Not only can you be too late, but equally importantly, you can be too early.
Trying to catch "the wave" of social and technological change is virtually impossible. It's akin to trying to time the stock market. The pace of change is dizzying, many "next big things" turn out to be duds, and things that are dismissed as trivial turn out to become wildly successful. I have already blogged about the folly and futility of trying to predict the future. Now I'm proposing to argue that it is just as impossible to truly comprehend the present.
There are many claims that we live in a "post-industrial age". But do we really? Yes, many western economies seem to be moving away from industrialism and manufacturing to some other form of economic activity ("service" economies actually being more economically significant than "knowledge" economies). But the global economy is actually still heavily predicated on industrialism--the manufacturing and consumption of "hard goods". They're just being manufactured in places that are more economically advantageous for global capitalism and being shipped around the world because our current carbon economy makes shipping ridiculously cheap, and the combination of manufacturing in a location where labour is cheap (expendable, even) plus shipping is still economically "better" than manufacturing in locations where labour is more expensive.
So do the massive bodies of literature making recommendations as to what we should do in the supposed post-industrial age really hold true? Do they truly understand present reality? I am increasingly doubtful/skeptical that they actually do.
What I find fascinating about the article "Catching the Knowledge Wave: Redefining Knowledge for the Post-Industrial Age" (Gilbert, 2007) is in fact it's deep reliance on the past to make its argument. The absolute foundation of the article's entire argument is the work of Jean-Francois Lyotard, which dates from the 1970s--30 years prior to the publication of the article and almost 40 years prior to today. That's verging on being half a century old!
Another of the readings suggests that the concept of the "Knowledge Age" or "Knowledge Society" itself is outdated, arguing instead that we have already passed through this stage and should be preparing for the "Creative Age" or "Creative Society" (sadly, I can't seem to put my finger on the specific article at the moment).
Gilbert's article is, in fact, largely a work of history. It examines the origins of the concept of the "Knowledge Society". It examines the history of schooling. It postulates or proposes a future, and then creates some proposals to suit that postulate. But this aspect of the article is entirely speculative. Only the historical aspects of the article have any great degree of certitude.
It is now common or received wisdom to suggest that those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. This is, of course, absolutely true. But perhaps it is only history--the past--which we can truly understand. Trying to predict the future--especially in such a time of profound change--is virtually impossible. And perhaps even truly understanding the present is just as impossible.
So what, then, are the implications for education and educators? Can we truly try to mold something as massive and unwieldy as the social structure/system of "education" for some speculative future? It certainly seems that we have come to grips with its history, and have recognized that we do not wish to repeat the past. But how can we possibly create the future, when even the past is profoundly uncertain and, I would argue, not fully understood?
I don't mean to be glib--quite the contrary. I am increasingly unsure about not only what to do for the future, but even what questions to ask about the present!
Reference: Gilbert, J. (2007). Catching the Knowledge Wave: Redefining Knowledge in the Post-Industrial Age. Retrieved from:http://www.cea-ace.ca/sites/cea-ace.ca/files/EdCan-2007-v47-n3-Gilbert.pdf
Michael,
ReplyDeleteAs I read the article “catching the Knowledge Wave”, the analogy of catching a tsunami seems more appropriate. Like you, I found the claim that we are moving away from an industrial society entirely, to be western-centric. Nevertheless, I agreed fully with the author’s assertion that many school systems are still “organized to meet the needs of the Industrial Age”(Gilbert, 2007, p.1). This must change. The pedagogic approaches, curriculum, how technology is used and even the physical spaces in schools (as mentioned in your trends research) must rise to the challenge of preparing students to engage in the participatory culture of our digital age.
Your post caught my eye when you mentioned the Creative Age. I really struggle with the ‘label’ Knowledge Society or Age. Too much credence is placed on the term ‘knowledge’, when so much more than knowledge is needed. In researching my trends paper, I came across the work of Mitchel Resnick and I think you might find his article Sewing the Seeds for a more Creative Society a good starting point. He points out that in the1980s, the discourse focused on the shift from the Industrial Society to the Information Society. In the 1990’s the literature began to talk about the Knowledge Society. However, Resnick (2007) says:
“As I see it, knowledge alone is not enough. In today’s rapidly changing world, people must continually come up with creative solutions to unexpected problems. Success is based not only on what you know or how much you know, but on your ability to think and act creatively. In short, we are now living in the Creative Society” (p.1).
Resnick believes that in a Creative Society change, accelerated by the proliferation of new technologies, drives the need for creative thinking. If technology is properly employed in the classroom, it will grow creative thinkers who are prepared for life in the Creative Society.
Resnick (2007) discussed technologies well suited to supporting the “creative thinking spiral.” A process where learners “imagine what they want to do, create a project based on their ideas, play with their creations, share their ideas and creations with others, and reflect on their experiences—all of which leads them to imagine new ideas and new projects”(p.1). As learners engage in the spiral repeatedly they generate their own ideas, take risks, test boundaries, experiment with choice, get peer input and generate new ideas and thinking and competencies.
Resnick’s thinking and proposal of a Creation Society seems to ‘fit’ better with the need to grow technological fluency, self-efficacy and 21st century competencies in our learners. It fits with the Maker culture, poised to enter classrooms and fits with the Inquiry model. So I might not catch the wave either; I think I prefer my learners catch a rid on the ‘creative thinking spiral’ .
Thanks for posting Michael. Thought provoking as usual,
Colleen
Resnick, M. (2007). Sewing the seed for a more creative society. International Society for Technology in Education, Dec-Jan 2007-2008, 18-22. Retrieved from: http://web.media.mit.edu/~mres/papers/Learning-Leading-final.pdf
Gilbert, J. (2007). Catching the Knowledge Wave: Redefining Knowledge in the Post-Industrial Age. Retrieved from:http://www.cea-ace.ca/sites/cea-ace.ca/files/EdCan-2007-v47-n3-Gilbert.pdf