A Commentary on “Challenging the Paradigm,” by Kim Reilly

 

By Courtney Moore, Bryn Mawr College

 

 

I enjoyed this discussion of technology as a potentially destructive and divisive force, and I empathize with Kim’s assertion that the modern obsession with “progress” is detrimental to producing aware, conscientious, involved citizens. However, the paper takes two directions that could be somewhat contradictory, and I’d like to clarify its message. On one hand, you point out that technology is dangerous due to its connections with corporate interests, the propagation of narrow rationality claims, tendency to alienate teachers from their students, and the process of de-skilling workers. The emphasis on efficiency and productivity precludes nurturing critically conscious citizens, and may edge out education programs in music and the arts, etc. Therefore the very act of encouraging technologically-advanced education methods seems to threaten pedagogical aims.

However, you also emphasize that unequal distribution of technological tools may increase social inequality and further disenfranchise marginalized groups such as racialized and/or economically disadvantaged populations. The jump in low-skilled and service jobs, which pay below average wages, threatens to turn workers into unnecessary commodities, thereby reducing disadvantaged parties to an inferior status while preventing such parties from improving their situation. These groups would seem to benefit from better technological resources.

This apparent contradiction seems especially applicable in the case of distance education, which you identify as a technological “quick fix.” I heartily agree with the assertion that technology should not, and in fact cannot substitute for pedagogy. However, your discussion of online education seems to assume that such methods are inflexible, de-professionalizing, and ultimately harmful to both students and teachers. Distance education in fact often provides resources for underprivileged or disadvantaged individuals, such as working single mothers, GED candidates, students whose native language is not English, etc. Distance education courses are often available through programs in community colleges or municipal libraries that can reach underprivileged populations. In this sense, technology might not contribute to the feminization of poverty or the disenfranchisement of minority groups, and may in fact open lines of communication within and between marginalized populations.

          What is unclear to me is whether technology as outlined in the paper is negative overall, or whether you are critiquing the unequal distribution of technological tools, which could potentially improve socio-economic conditions.◦

 

©Courtney Moore, 2006