In Chapter 1, Franklin talks about two types of technology: holistic and prescriptive. On p.17, she says: “Today’s real world of technology is characterized by the dominance of prescriptive technologies. Prescriptive technologies are not restricted to materials production. They are used in administrative and economic activities and in many aspects of governance, and on them rests the real world of technology in which we live. While we should not forget that these prescriptive technologies are often exceedingly effective and efficient, they come with an enormous social mortgage. …”
She goes on and says that while these prescriptive technologies bring a wealth of important products that have raised living standards and increased well-being, they have created a culture of compliance.
This is a very important point that Franklin makes which very much reminds me of Foucault’s idea on “panopticism”; i.e., using power to control social behaviour, a kind of power that is visible but unverifiable. After some time, people may not see it as control since they have internalized that power. Therefore, even if the power of authority is not present, they will behave as if the power exists.
I now relate Franklin and Foucault’s idea to ‘technology and education’. Based on the above, can you give examples of the ways that technology is used in schools/education as “prescriptive”; i.e., while that technology can be used for improving people’s well-being, it is used in a way in schools that controls students’ behaviour? I really like to know what you think about Franklin’s idea on prescriptive technology and its connection to education.
-mahboubeh
26 comments:
One of this is the power to word process on a computer. I find that when students are writing or doing projects, it seems like both them and the teacher always expect the finished product to be a neat, typed document using a computer. This, I believe, created an over-dependence on the technology. Since word processing programs uses automatic spell checks, students are relying too much on the computer doing the editing for them. As a result, words that sounded the same but have a completely different yet valid spelling are not caught by either the computer nor the students.
Also, the wide availability (and consequently the low cost) of computers has created an assumption that every family has a computer at home. When I was doing my practicum, I made sure that students' work can be either typed or neatly hand-written - since not everyone has a working computer or printer at home.
This is a very good example of using technology in a prescriptive way, implying that there is only 'one' way of doing things- here, one way of writing text. It is great to have it optional as you said (I see your username as "meh"??) to avoid this culture of compliance!
thanks for your comment.
Hi
Traditional methods of developing photography will probably be eliminated and completely replaced by digital photography. The chemicals,developing tools and maintenance are two expensive compared to the efficiency of digital photography. While digital photography is awesome, developing photographs with chemicals is a different experience - especially the 'magic' of the image as it appears slowly on the paper.
While students will not be directed to use only digital photography, they will probably not have any alternative.
These types of forums have the potential to replace classroom times - as it has done for us. Another class could be using our classroom at SFU right now. This has huge economic implications in terms of cost savings and generating additional revenue. Will high schools eventually pickup on this and have one day a week or more at home? You could have two schools sharing one building! While I like these forms I think they are still only a simulation and can not replace the spontaneity and effectiveness of face to face meetings. Having said that, face to face meetings will now have to be weighed against the cost of paying for cost of classroom space, rent , maintenance,etc - all the costs associated with running and owning a building.
An example that comes to mind from the school I did my short practicum at was the video monitors around the school common area to convey the days schedule and some announcements. Also, the presence of the day announcements posted on the school website. These are not the "traditional" means of announcements that I grew up with. We would sit and listen to the school principal over the public address system. How many students today are comfortable talking with their principal in the hallway as they may have not heard his voice during announcements. I also feel that the technology is modern and necessary but is effective at controlling student by having the information of announcement everywhere and not very effective in controlling student behaviour. Relationships and face-to-face interaction with teachers and admin make a difference in school culture. My thots for right now.
Also, the act of giving announcements by the principal is more holistic compared to prescriptive. The principal can make last minute decisions as to the content of the announcement if something needs addressing. Also, if announcements are over the PA students tune-out as they already know what's going to go on at school.
In Chapter 2, Franklin talks about how technology distorts reality by changing the way we experience reality. When we sit our students in front of a computer screen, we are no longer asking them to experience the world by using all 5 senses. Franklin argues that this downgrades or discounts "personal experience by ordinary people who are perfectly well equipped to interpret what their senses tell them." (32) Technology changes the way we receive and interpret reality, but this change is not wholly negative. On the other hand, technology has allowed us to overcome the limitiations of time and space; our students can explore worlds outside of the classroom, their community or even their country by using the Internet. However, we must question how real these Internet interactions are if our senses are not fully engaged.
Franklin goes on to say that “technical arrangements reduce or eliminate reciprocity.” (42) It occurs to me that online interaction is less genuine than face-to-face interactions. In this setting, I cannot see body language or hear voice inflections; I cannot see with my own eyes how my classmates are receiving my comments. Again, our sensory perception is extremely limited. An even more important point that Franklin makes is that “where there is no reciprocity, there is no need for listening.” (45) Students in an online forum may not read all of their classmates comments, which may be comparable to walking out on a student presentation or class discussion. The risk that an intended collaborative environment becomes a cooperative, or even independent, environment is very high.
As we all recognize, technology has its benefits and limitations. I think the key to outweighing the limitations with the benefits is to use technology as a supplement or extension tool rather than the “end-all and be-all.” We need to be critical about the technology we are using; we need to understand who and what it is marginalizing. Essentially, we need to ensure that the technology we use enhances rather than distorts our reality.
While students are encouraged to do searches for information on the internet, and finding a great deal of relevant info from different perspectives, the inclusion of these sources undermines the power of the "expert" in the encyclopedias that we once used for information.
This is a balancing of the various influences that suggest where the power lies.
The power of the academic expert is offset by the ability of the knowledge searcher to experience the blogging of the common practitioner. The internet blogger could provide anecdotal knowledge to situations and historical events that could influence the political bias one way or another.
The attack of the expert is clothed in the cloak of credibility, criticalness, and objectivity. While the blogger is not objective, that is their strength in providing the first hand account of the event. The expert would like you to believe in objectivity, but we know that cultural, societal, racial, economic and gender bias has influence over sensibility and perception no matter how knowledgable you are.
One example that comes to mind is our increased dependence on 'instant' access to information. With the proliferation of cellular-based internet, everyone with a mobile device will have access to the internet within arms reach, 24/7. I see many advantages to such a connected society, but I see a growing rift between schools that adhere to traditional memorization of facts and manual calculations and this ' brave new world'. Can education systems adapt to this information-based society or will they be made irrelevant?
Classroom noise levels: Some teacher have found it really hard to balance larger class sizes with small classroom sizes, so here is a few things that I found as technology dictates the behaviour.
There is software that keeps your class noise at am "appropriate" level (whatever that means). You buy this kit, and with it comes a special microphone that records the volume of the class. When the noise level is too high a "RED" light comes on and gives a sound warning and the students have to bring their noise level down to "Green". I think this is an example of trying to maintain control without having to deal with the issue at hand.
2. Computer time is a commodity at the school I work at. The teachers love it because it becomes pretty quiet as the students work as individuals who are focused on the task at hand.
3. But, as for this class going on line, I really like being able to read other people's comments and have time to think about things said. Therefore, this blog has now dictated my behaviour because I have find a quiet place to work and be able to read and think about the things that are said, whereas in class I sometimes do not retain all the information said and discussed. I Also, I am saving the environment because I'm not polluting to drive to SFU!
Hi Everyone,
When I read Franklin's article and thought about prescriptive technology and it's connection to education, a few thoughts occurred to me.
I still believe and many educators believe and talk about 'holistic' approach in education. However, almost every part of the school system is run by prescriptive technology and production model. For example, we have a principal,secretary, custodian, science teacher, French teacher, music teacher, computer teacher, PE teacher in a majority of elementary schools(if the school budget can afford). This way we can produce a qualitative product(students in this case) in a more efficient way. Our education minister has even set the time line for each subjects, units, and for example thinks if our students are doing 30 minutes of exercise everyday, it will improve their health.
One interesting thing is that as Franklin mentioned even we can't argue with this because, the prescriptive technology is deeply rooted in our society and guarantees to produce mass amounts of good products in a timely manner.
This is certainly an interesting article and one that defined technology in a way, to me, that was unfamiliar. I always understood technology as being a tool or something we use to achieve a desired outcome, like a means to an end. It hadn’t previously occurred to me that technology could be considered “holistic” or “prescriptive”. However, after reading this paper I can see how these definitions fit into a larger and deeper definition of technology.
With reference to education and “prescriptive” technology it can be argued that there exists a tendency for some teachers and administration to try to capsulate and place students in a subject-box process. Classes which exists entirely on their own and are measured independently with little regard to the larger picture where interconnectedness and balance is not considered as valued parameters in the curriculum of such lessons or subjects. For example: Mathematic problem solving where students are taught to apply equations to solve problems without understanding the nature of the equation or problem being addressed. Such problems are encountered when teachers try to teach to a test or other administrative assessment like a provincial exam. This leads to improper use of tools like calculators and students learn only how to apply steps in a formula. If a step is missing the student often gets lost and can go no further.
Another example is the military. The military training methods are also very prescriptive; however, only to the point of mastery in a skill or process. After a person has achieved a level of competence in their skill they are then taught a holistic approach to understand the system. This is called cross training and is very important to ensuring the military machine does not break down for the loss of a single person. Cross training is a holistic technological requirement.
Lastly, up until recently, the school system of grades (K-12) could be considered a prescriptive technology method where each grade is completed independently of the other with little to no consideration for what has come before, or what will come after. This has changed greatly in the last ten years and teachers are now participating in Planning Learning Committees (PLC meetings) where entire unit plans are made with consideration for overlap between grades and emphasis on certain lessons important for the next class and school year. Also, much more attention is now being made to environmental concerns and how all things are interconnected. The greater understanding of this interconnectedness will beget a natural balance with not only humanity but with nature.
“We know today that this discounting of context and the failure to consider external and interactive effects are, in fact, a ticket to trouble. We know that the deterioration of the world’s environment arose precisely from such inadequate modeling.” (p. 21)
I couldn’t agree more with Franklin on her statement that “if there ever was a growth process, if there ever was a holistic process, a process that cannot be divided into rigid predetermined steps, it is education” (p. 23). Such understanding on an intuitive level can help eliminate the fear and anxieties of certain classes (like math) when both the teacher and student realize that every subject, every lesson, every grade is part of a greater awareness. Through such awareness truly astounding discoveries can be made.
As I neared the end of the Franklin article in Chapter 2 I read,
"One illustration of technologically induced human isolation: When I go to work in the morning I meet a neighbor and her ten-year-old daughter. Everyday they walk side by side to the bus stop, each plugged into her own Walkman, isolated from one another and from the rest of the world. Such is the real world of technology"
Human isolation is an inevitability when we have our technology boxes that captivate our attention and take us away from human contact. In the school system, iPods and cell phones are two means of technology that isolate and connect students. The teacher is unlikely privy to the conversations that occur on their cell phones and as likely to not be aware of the music the students are listening to as they walk into class.
The school policy on cell phones where I did my short practicum was that no cell phone was allowed to be used during instructional periods (i.e. during class time). This policy, enforced by my two SAs reduced the texting to near nothing during class, but also was a means of teach self preservation. That is to say, if the teacher is recorded with a camera video on a cell phone those images, much like the images we see in the news, can be very debilitating to a teachers reputation. Therefore, the use of cell phones is not desirable during class time.
But iPods on the other hand are another means of isolating a student from the rest of the class. School policy was that iPods were usable if the teacher allowed them in their classrooms. Good and bad. The students have what they like, their music, to which they can escape and turn off the outside (or inside classroom) world, but that lack of interaction halt meaningful discussion at times. But the teacher may battle with covert music listeners. My SAs policy were that no iPods during teacher talk time. Sounds fair, but as soon as the students were loosed to their homework, 30 iPods came out and the students hide in their little worlds. I never was permitted to have my Walkman in class at my high school, but I remember the isolation, by choice, that I felt when on holidays in the car with my family. I could listen for hours. Did we interact, not much.
The technology box, whatever that may be, must be used carefully as Jodi mention so that students are not isolated and reciprocity can take place.
Oops, I posted it in the wrong place.
Since, students in prescriptive technology play a different role in the process of producing something, Franklin states that” technologies are designs for compliance” (Franklin, 1990). However, technology is a multifaceted entity that acts as an agent of ordering and structuring. I see that it is used in schools in a way that launches students into cooperative learning, where a positive effect can happen to students’ empathy, tolerance for differences and self-confidence.
just saw this video in another class, that talks about how technology is being used in schools in aiding students who have certain learning disabilities. For example, a student was born visually impaired was able to purse his career in playing music and technology helps him in participating and learning in the same level as his peers. Technology such as the refreshable Braille displays, braille note takers and screen readings allows the vision impaired students to use screen-reader softwares to take notes, email,and etc. At the same time this student uses a special software to record notes while he is playing the piano, so that the melody he created can be printed out and be played by others. However, if these technologies did not exist in classrooms today, students who are visually impaired would never be able to write their own melody because it would be too difficult for them to do it by pen and paper
This topic reminded me of an article I had read after seeing the link on Webbits. (Link below) It was about the use of technology to communicate student progress with parents. The result was that parents had total access to all of their students grades, often getting them even before the students themselves. This might be seem as a good thing by some but the article focuses on the students response. Obviously it creates quite a bit of anxiety since poor test scores result in punishment or other (negatively experienced) parental interactions.
The increased access to information that technology brings is helpful only insofar at we know what to do with it--how we can respond to it in a useful way. In this case, online access to grades by parents is described by students as a source of oppression.
We can't assume that increased power is always good. It needs to be accompanied by education on its uses and abuses, in all cases.
But at the same time, one writer I read recently commented that it is naive to try to prescribe how a technology is to be used. You just need to look at what it is capable of, and know that it will be used to the extent of its functions, and to the desires of the users.
Here is the article: "I Know What You Did Last Math Class"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/fashion/04edline.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=education&adxnnlx=1214606995-+RM/FMhM+9C0s59eOhuyaA
I posting this on Charlene Sutcliffe's behalf. She write:
Hey Guys,
I can't get it to work, so until it does here are my thoughts...
I can see "prescriptive technology" present in the traditional high school music class. Not so much in actual technology but in the traditional system of band. Everyone learns an instrument, hopefully one of choice! They play the music placed before them which as a whole band, creates a song. But their part has little room for individual musical interpretation that doesn't happen to agree with the conductor. This is the method used to teach "music" to a class full of kids. It is rare to find a school that includes a composition, theory class, or even a large written component along with the practical musical elements. To develop true musicians, I feel, it is important to incorporate aspects of all these elements because composers do not learn to write by never having the opportunity to experiment! Jazz band often opens the door to this easier than concert band due to the improvised solos:) Yet, at the same time one can not be without the prescriptive system as how then, would a music teacher ever have time to knowledge to individually train each student in their own musical program? AND students would never truly learn to play as an ensemble (or group) to learn balance, accompaniment and sharing of melodic lines?
I suppose, as history has shown, we will forever strive to balance prescriptive and holistic methods. With technology influencing more and more of the daily life it is only more important to become aware of these issues. Previously I have only thought about them in a home setting, as the art of hospitality is quickly becoming lost. The saying "it takes a village to raise a child" is also taking on a new context as people often don't know their neighbours or invest in quality friendships with the people their children might interact with.
Charlene
When I started reading this article, the first thing that comes to mind was how we learn skills for survival. As I believe some parts of our education system are actually preparing our students to become good workers using skills training. For example, memorizing derivatives and integration formulas would not enhance our understanding on certain mathematical application. I think this is a similar view with Franklin’s idea of prescriptive technology. Furthermore, we become social products or mechanism of the society. To me, it suggested that we are losing our ability to think critically, to be creative, to strive for understanding/ knowledge, to communicate, and to reason with logic. We no longer understand or think about the big picture and only consider part of it.
Secondly, in my opinion the original intention for technology was good. It was originally thought and use as a tool to simplified complicated situation and to make life easier. However, the prescriptive technology and the control come in when people starts to alter the intended use of the technology. It is similar to how we have laws to prevent people from stealing. It is a deficit model, meaning that we first assume people are bad, or a deficit; therefore, we need something to control them. As in Franklin’s example about the smart building, the original intention was to create a safe environment for workers, but it turned into a device where employer could check where their employees are.
An example of prescriptive technology that came to mind while I was reading through this article was "Turn It In" software. This software is being used by many high school English teachers now, as a way to electronically collect assignments. The initial use of the software was most likely to make things more efficient for students and teachers to hand in and collect assignments. Though now days I know this software is predominantly used for checking students papers for plagiarism (especially at the post secondary level). Uses of software like this only reaffirm who has the power, so to speak in an educational setting. Software like Turn It In says to a student " I am expecting you to plagiarism so you had better not" does this send the right kind of message to students in a responsible educational way?
If one accepts Franklin’s definition of technology and her interpretation of economic history, then it doesn’t seem too difficult to find examples of “prescriptive” technology in schools/education. The school bell, school uniforms, standardized tests, the QWERTY layout on the keyboard, wikis and e-mail could all be considered “prescriptive” technologies; this certainly fits with Franklin’s assertion that so-called “prescriptive” technologies dominate our world. As an example, wikis and the like would be considered a “prescriptive” technology because, like Franklin’s example of networked word processors, students “can be timed, assignments can be broken up, and the interaction between the operators can be monitored.”
Franklin’s concept of “prescriptive technology” and the “culture of compliance” it supposedly breeds ultimately rests on the idea that specialization and the division of labour are the result of technology, which she broadly defines in a “global sense” as formalized practice (as ways of doing something). As Michael Foucault would argue, covert relations of power (e.g. technology) are the driving force in human situations as if human beings are lemmings determined by forces external to their own chosen purposes. One might label this technological determinism: the idea that new technologies drive change in human societies.
Unfortunately, I don’t fully agree with Franklin’s notion of “prescriptive” technology. In contrast, many would argue that the division of labour that “spread like an oil slick” after the Industrial Revolution, which is fundamentally different to the preindustrial era (e.g. the Shang Dynasty), is the result of conscious human decision and purposeful action (also known as the Ricardian law of association, the law of comparative advantage or the law of comparative cost). As such, technology (e.g. mechanization) is the fruit of the division of labour, not its motive or controlling force. In regard to the notion of power, some would argue that it is of value not for itself, but for what its wielders accomplish with it. As such, power is a means, not an end, and it should have no independent context as an idea. The same could be said for technology. From this perspective, wikis and the like would be considered a means, a tool if you will, for teachers to provide increased educational efficacy by collaborating in a more productive and efficient way. Of course, wikis could be used to control students’ behaviour, but this only highlights that technology is a means for the attainment of ends and is neutral in respect to those ends sought.
As a side note, I also find it interesting that a complaint often voiced by many teachers, including myself, is the lack of specialization in terms of subjects taught in our public schools. Some schools in BC and abroad have addressed this at the secondary level by having teachers teach their field of expertise (e.g. Biology) for all grades (8-12). There are certainly arguments for and against this, but if educational efficacy is the end goal, is further specialization the means to attain the ends sought? Maybe. Maybe not.
Hi everyone,
Franklin’s idea about technology and isolation is an interesting perspective about our technology reality ( Pseudo reality). I wonder how many of us, including educators and students, are somehow getting more comfortable in this technology created Pseudo reality than reality (face to face world).
Regarding the student who has a visual difficulty in Karon’s posting, I understand that technology helped him a lot and he enjoyed many things. It looked like his Pseudo reality is transformed the reality of his life. Franklin mentioned about Pseudo reality creates Pseudo community. Isn’t our on-line blog a case of this Pseudo community? It’s a very interesting concept that we are living both in reality and in a Pseudo reality now and whether we want or not technology is changing our way of living and education. As an educator it will be challenging and meaningful task that utilize this technology’s pros.
Paul
Ps.
I liked Franklin’s view that “Knowledge separate with experience” Can I say that knowing and teaching is not the same. The best scientist or mathematics is not the best teacher
When relating Fouclault's idea to 'technology and education' my first thoughts are of the intercom systems that are hooked up in every classroom. At any point in time the administration can listen in on a class and 'observe' the teacher. There is no way to know when they are listening and as a result I believe this type of technology can exercise control over the behavior of the teacher.
And although I believe that this technology does have an important function in student safety, it can also hamper their learning. If the teacher internalizes that power so much so that he/she is too afraid to address certain issues or topics, out of fear that they may be too controversial, or deemed such by an unknown, or even unwelcome eves-dropper. I think teachers have a unique opportunity with students in that they can have such conversations with their students in a safe environment. I believe that all too often adults try to protect their children by ignoring and not discussing the realities of our world. Yet students remain aware of such issues and even more so intrigued by them by the very fact that certain information is 'kept secret'. Is it just me or does this feel a little like censorship?
On another point, I would just like to say that I feel that prescriptive technologies are dehumanizing. When the process is so broken down, you as the creator do not get to the point of satisfaction or completion. By breaking down processes in this manner knowledge and power are spread so thinly that no one actually knows every step. 'Fordism' diminishes humanity and decreases individual power, therefore perpetuating the power structures that exist in our society.
~Erin
Stephanie, your comments resonated with me. I can't believe software such as the noise-level indicator exists! It reminds me of those security level warnings you hear in US airports. Oddly enough, I think a lot of students would honor a digital noise-regulator because it is objective; you can't argue the machine, right?
In regards to Franklin's paper, I think one of her valid points is that we should recognize technology as a system and a practice. Developers and marketers have been quick to synthesize technology into our lives that it almost grew on us, like a childhood friend (or like mold, depending on your perspective on technology). Reading the comparison between the holistic technologies of artisans and craftspeople(10)and the prescriptive technologies of the Chinese(10), I couldn't help but envision hoardes of factory workers massively producing these fantastic objects(not necessarily in Asia). I almost laughed out loud when Franklin suggests that she's argued "that the historically very early acculturation of Chinese people into prescriptive work processes must be regarded as a formative factor in the emergence of Chinese social and political thought and behaviour" (17). Wow, talk about internalizing power and creating a culture of compliance -- Soviet-style technocracy anyone?
This is a sobering article and I truly hope that we don't reduce classroom management to "green" = keep talking and "red" = be quiet. What will happen to self-monitoring and a natural outburst of emotion (laughter or adding dramatic effects to commens)?
I think that the big idea that Franklin is talking about is that technology is a product of society and culture. I agree that technology has impact on the society, economics and other aspects of life. But in the end the technology develops out of society, a product of history (cultutal and technological development), the society's goals (motivation, purpose for developing the technology and resources that you have access to based on what the soceity has). With this in mind of course technology has a very real and important impact on education.
Franklin is very clear in distinguishing the two streams of technological apporach: holistic and prescriptive. I believe that these approaches represent a shift is the larger societies values; a shift from valuing holistic knowledge to specialists. The society we currently value leans towards specialists. Because of this there is a direct impact on education, how it is taught, broken down into subjects and topics. I believe there is a larger shift in society to a more holistic view and this is also occuring in education. As we move towards theme-based learning, student centered classrooms and problem-based learning which all require integration of subjects and ideas (not fragmentation of them). Like technology I feel that the education system represents society's values and goals. And as such I think that the the two streams of holistic and prescriptive technologies are not as seperate anymore; soceity is seeeing that both have their place and importance.
Post a Comment