To Technology and Beyond

Technology commonly dreamt of in sci-fi films may no longer be a figment of imagination but actual tangible products that can “revolutionise our classrooms and the way children learn within 5 years. (Arlington, 2012)” It is said that the introduction to such technology as the touch screen tables can be beneficial as it, allows teachers to monitor participation with groups and “encourage collaborative learning as users solve problems together. (Arlington, 2012)” It also provides teachers with more methods to teach to a wide range of learning styles. Many have indicated that technology is the key to future education. However, my own personal experiences with education and technology show that the reliance on technology to be the future of educational should be reconsidered.

“We create ourselves through objects or symbols we must buy.” (Wadham et al, 2007: 4) Although this quote refers to our identity in the consumer culture, this is very reflective of how schools and teachers identify themselves, through technology. It could even be rephrased to ‘ schools create themselves through computers and smart boards they must have,’ as it reflects how school choosers identify schools in relations to the technology present.

The first interactive smart board was installed into my year 10 commerce teacher’s classroom, he said that his lessons would change and be better than ever. For me, his lessons remained relatively the same; the only difference being that his PowerPoint slides were now projected onto an interactive Smartboard by an ugly orange block which hung centimetres away. There was an observable change in the teacher’s behaviour, where he walked around more proudly in his classroom and fiddled with the Smartboard more whenever another teacher was nearby, almost as if he was asserting his teaching status with the smart board. You may question the validity of my observation but this behavioural change became a source of mockery in the playground amongst students.

It is interesting that he (amongst other teachers) have identified technological consumption as the means to quality education. Similarly, students/parents chose schools based on aesthetics such as the presence of ‘state of the art’ technology and schools advertise these aesthetics to attract students. (Kenway & Bullen, 2004) This makes me question how much of the school’s identity is based upon the new technological presence and how much is based upon its primary role to educate children?

In Snyder et al’s case study; they observe and compare computer usage at home and its impact on the children’s education. Results indicated that computer access did not enhance learning rather that it was dependent upon how it is used. At a particular high school I am currently helping out at, I have been able to observe first hand the extent to which technology influences learning.

The implementation of the Digital Education Revolution Policy saw the year 9s of 2009 being given laptops for their educational benefit. At this particular high school, these laptops have been beneficial for students during theory lessons as they type up the theoretical work quickly and can get through the lesson quickly. Smart boards have been beneficial for teachers as they are no longer restricted to textbooks, however, I have seen more flaws that benefits which ultimately hinders learning.

In the classroom, teachers are the “authority insofar as they possess critical amounts of training, knowledge and skills. (Leonardo, Z, 2010: 06)” It is in the presence of technology that authority is lost. Students are accessing blocked websites such a Facebook and Bubble trouble. Although there is a concern that children are not paying attention, the primary concern is that despite all the precautions taken to prevent students from accessing such websites, students are still able to access them. Here, teacher’s are helpless as their “training, knowledge and skill(Leonardo, Z, 2010: 06)” is unable to help them overcome this situation; and so authority is lost.

To conclude, society needs to reconsider the value of technology in education. It is because of the high value placed on the procession on technology that parents and students identify good schools as the presence of  ‘state of the arts’ technology. Similarly schools re-identify themselves through technological possession to attract these parents and students. Furthermore, teachers feel that the presence of technology makes them better educators, although my experiences show that ir makes no difference. I am not saying that technology is useless in the education system, rather that self-value and school choice should not be dependent upon technological possession and schools should reconsider the needs of new technology such as robot buddies.

References

Arlington, K. (2012). Sci-fi tech coming to a school near you. Sydney Morning Herald, [online] 16 July. Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/scifi-tech-coming-to-a-classroom-near-you-20120715-2248b.html [Accessed: 15 September].

Kenway, J. & Bullen, (2001). Consuming children: Education-Entertainment-Advertising. Buckingham: Open University Press. Chapter 5: Designer schools, packaged students

Leonardo, Z. (2009). Affirming ambivalence: Introduction to cultural politics and education. In Z. Leonardo (Ed.), Handbook of Cultural Politics and Education (pp.1-48), Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Snyder, I., Angus, L. & Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002). Building equitable literate futures: Home and school computer-mediated literacy practices and disadvantage. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(3), 367-383.

Wadham, B. Pudsey, J. & Boyd, R. (2007). Culture and education. Sydney: Pearson Education. Chapter 1: What is culture?

McEducation: “Balanced Eating” and a “Better Diet” consists of a Happy Meal with apple slices and chocolate milk.

Harrison’s article “Schools are a marketer’s dream venue” emphasizes the costs of advertising in schools with a particular emphasis on the long term behavioural impact of the sponsorships by the fast food on children and adolescents. The you tube video is the first of a series of advertisements by McDonald’s “nutrition commitment to promote nutrition and/or active lifestyle message in 100% of its national communication to kids,” (McDonalds, 2012) where there is a problem with the pet goat at home eating everything in sight and this problem is solved by taking the goat to McDonalds where it gets a “better diet” of apple slices and chocolate milk and becomes as “strong as an ox.”

Although, children and schools are benefitting from extra funding in that they are able to afford new technologies and provide programs fro students, companies are taking advantage of them. Through school sponsorships and funding, companies are able to advertise and have access to ALL the vulnerable children and adolescents. It is through such marketing strategies that they are able to expose their products to every child, resulting in increased product popularity and sales.

“One thing they now is that the more we are exposed to a particular ad, or product, or brand, the more we are likely to believe it is a good product or brand.”(Harrison, 2009) Similarly Kenway and Bullen state, “Advertising is not only a key element of a market culture, it is also pivotal to the growth of such cultures and, at the same time, it establishes its own momentum.” Kenway, Bullen and Harrison suggest that schools are caught in a continuous cycle, where the more funding the school receives, the more they become absorbed in the market culture, the more they advertise, the more expose their products and ultimately the more the undesirable product becomes desirable.

McDonalds has long been identified as an unhealthy fast food restaurant. In the new ad, it suggests that the food at home is no good and the place to go for a “better diet,” and to be “as strong as an ox.” With the new US McDonald’s campaign to “improve nutritional choices,” parental control over the education of healthy eating to their children is compromised. As adults, it is understood that the phrase “Improve[d] nutritional choices” means the minority of their menu that is considered healthy and nutritional is now more nutrition than it was before, which leads to the question how can you make something that was nutritional to begin with more nutritional???... Unless it wasn’t nutritional to begin with…

However the ad targeted at children creates the “dreamscape”(Kenway & Bullman, 2009:Pp.128) suggests that food from home is not good for you, which is why McDonald’s is the place to go for good food. This campaign recreates a whole new identity for McDonald’s as it suggests that McDonald’s is healthy, and mummy and daddy’s excuse that McDonald’s is not good for you is rendered mute. How are parents to teach their children the maintenance of a healthy and active lifestyle when their children are being exposed to advertisements everyday that say otherwise?

References

Aboutmcdonalds.com (2011). McDonald's® USA: Commitments to Offer Improved Nutrition Choices :: AboutMcDonalds.com. [online] Available at: http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/newsroom/electronic_press_kits/mcdonalds_usa_commitments_to_offer_improved_nutrition_choices.html [Accessed: 3 Sep 2012].

Harrison, P. (2009). Schools are a marketer's dream venue. The Sydney Morning Herald, [online] 22 October. Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/schools-are-a-marketers-dream-venue-20091021-h8xj.html [Accessed: 03 Sep 2012].

Kenway, J. & Bullen, (2001). Consuming children: Education-Entertainment-Advertising. Buckingham: Open University Press. Chapter 5: Designer schools, packaged students.

McDonalds (2012). McDonald's: Champions of Happy, Goat. [video online] Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qtws5vqhxw&feature=related&noredirect=1 [Accessed: 03 Sep 2012].