Extending the Architectural Metaphor

I mentioned in my D2L post for Week 10 that I had been struck by Sharon Friesen's use of of an architectural metaphor in her article on competency-based curriculum (Friesen 2013). Meanwhile, I just posted my link and question about an environmental issue for Week 12, which is about architecture--a subject of particular interest to me. As you know by now, my particular area of interest is in the design--the architecture--of "school", both as social institution and as built environment.

The metaphor of teachers as architects of learning has resonated very strongly with me, especially in light of everything we have considered this semester. Architects create designs, but they do not actually build. Architects have a vision of where they want a process to go, but they need many others to reach the goal. Architects must often revise, refine, or reject ideas, designs and plans. Architects coordinate and facilitate the work of many different groups and individuals, all of whom have their own strengths and weaknesses. Architects understand and use some technology, but they also rely on others who have particular or specific technological tools, without necessarily fully understanding how their colleagues use a particular tool.

This indeed sounds very much like the evolving role of the teacher. The teacher creates the overall design, but the students do the actual construction/building/learning/work. The teacher has a goal or outcome in mind, and designs a process by which to work toward the intended result. The teacher is constantly revising, refining, or rejecting ideas as the process unfolds. The teacher works with a variety of students, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, but each contributing to the overall goal. The teacher coordinates and facilitates the work being performed by the students. The teacher may not fully understand a particular technological tool being used by a student, but can see the value of the tool to the work being performed.

Architecture is a holistic practice. A building requires a variety of individual systems or components (the envelope, mechanical systems, electrical systems, plumbing systems, and so forth)--but they must all come together to create a whole which functions as a seamlessly integrated set of systems. No "subject" or "discipline" exists in isolation--they are all interdependent. Similarly, education must be a holistic, integrated practice. Subjects do not exist in isolated silos. They are interdependent. It is the teacher--or teachers--who coordinate and facilitate the coordination of various components to create an integrated set of systems which function as a whole.

Architects are not "experts" in any of the various fields which contribute to the completion of a building. They are not engineers, skilled tradespeople, or technology gurus. They are facilitators, coordinators, and problem-solvers. They have a certain degree of control, but they must also relinquish a great deal of control to those who turn their vision into a finished product. The metaphor seems truly apt for today's teacher. The work is indeed rich and challenging!

Reference:
Friesen, S. (2013). The rich and challenging work of competency-based curriculum. ATA Magazine. 93(4), no pages given.

Left to Our Own Devices?

The traditional meaning of the idiom "left to one's own devices" means to be allowed to decide for ourselves what to do. It may imply that someone else is leaving us to our own devices without trying to help or control us, but not necessarily. But in our present world of "devices", is there a somewhat different meaning we can assign to the expression?

I'm sure many people of all ages would indeed prefer to be left to their own devices--i.e., to not have someone trying to "help" or "control" the ways in which they use their devices. There has been much discussion among our group about "alarmist" or "fear-mongering" rhetoric around the ways in which people do or don't use various technological devices. I've used the metaphor before, but it truly seems as if the pendulum of conventional wisdom about devices and social media has swung from the utopian extreme to the dystopian.

Let's not rush to judgment in either direction. I would suggest that both extremes are not true. It is undeniably true that the hardware and software have "radically reshaped out social lives" (Brown, 2011). But notice that Brown does not say "for the better" or "for the worse"--merely that our social lives have been reshaped. There simply has not yet been enough time for us to truly understand the myriad ways in which this has occurred and to create social codes and conventions around this phenomenon.

Despite the alarmist rhetoric, studies seem to be concluding that there is "no difference in either offline network size or emotional closeness between those that use social media and those that do not at all" (Pollet, et al, 2011). It is worth bearing in mind that "smartphones" and the various social media platforms have both only been with us for approximately a decade. The work of Brown and Pollet, et al was published in 2011. Their research may well have been conducted in 2010 or even 2009. This may not seem like that long ago, but it is half the time that these technologies have existed! Perhaps we should indeed leave people to their own devices and give ourselves a bit more time to think somewhat more calmly and reasonably about the benefits and/or risks of those devices and platforms.

On the other hand, I would hate to see a world in which people are "left to their own devices" when it comes to "assistive technology" or "bring your own device". Coleman (2011) does not speak directly to the issue of cost in her paper, but matters of cost are implicit throughout her discussion of issues around the availability and implementation of assistive technology--assessment, training, and so forth. We are all familiar, I'm sure, with anecdotes about families who have to raise many thousands of dollars to acquire various assistive technologies on their own.

Our most recent discussion of "bring your own device" or "student-owned devices" raises a similar spectre of social-economic equity or justice. Crichton et al are not specifically addressing student owned devices in their paper, but they do suggest that "personal wireless devices might be those nimble shape-shifters capable of putting opportunity into the hands of learners, significantly changing teaching and learning" (Crichton, et al, 2012). Nedungadi & Raman seem somewhat naive in blithely stating that mobile devices are affordable, widespread and egalitarian (Nedungadi & Raman, 2012). Widespread, perhaps, but by no means necessarily affordable or egalitarian.

From a systemic or institutional point of view, the allure of "leaving people to their own devices" when it comes to assistive technology or student-owned devices is easy to understand. If the onus can be shifted to the individual, there is no obligation on the part of the system or institution to provide anything, which in turn leads to massive cost and administrative savings on a number of fronts. But the socio-economic issues of any such thing are obvious and completely unacceptable.

Many post-secondary institutions now require incoming students to have some sort of device. They specify platform and minimum system requirements. Students must purchase a device before they can begin their studies. This is both laudable and entirely acceptable. Post-secondary education carries a number of costs, which are fully understood and accepted by all. Requiring a student-own device is simply another cost associated with post-secondary education.

But in a publicly funded compulsory education system, it is simply unacceptable to require individual families to equip their child(ren) with a device. If technology is to become a basic tool or requirement for full participation in such a system, the onus must reside squarely on the system to provide the necessary tools. Obviously, the "system" must be adequately resourced to do so. In other words, we--collectively through taxation--must provide sufficient funding to the system. 

Ultimately, this becomes a social and political issue. If we want each student in our publicly-funded compulsory education system to have a device, we must summon the social and political will to make it happen. What we cannot allow is a system in which individuals with sufficient resources receive one form or level of education while those less fortunate receive something lesser.

References:

Brown, A. (2011). Relationships, Community, and Identity in the New Virtual Society. Futurist, 45(2), 29-34. 

Crichton, S., Pegler, K., White, D. (2012). Personal Devices in Public Settings: Lessons Learned From an iPod Touch/iPad Project. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(1), 22-31.

Nedungadi, P. & Raman, R. (2012). A New Approach to Personalization: Integrating E-Learning and M-Learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 659-678.

Pollet, T.V., Roberts, S.G.B., Dunbar, R.I.M. (2011). Use of Social Network Sites and Instant Messaging Does Not Lead to Increased Offline Social Network Size, or to Emotionally Closer Relationships with Offline Network Members. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(4), 253-258.