Thank You, #EDCMOOC & Making My Digital Artifact, Learning Is An Adventure

Thank You, #EDCMOOC & Making My Digital Artifact, Learning Is An Adventure

by Justine C. Tajonera

My #EDCMOOC (eLearning and Digital Cultures Massive Open Online Course) posts spring from my participation in the course offered for free by the University of Edinburgh via Coursera.org.

I had a lot of fun making my final assignment for my EDCMOOC (eLearning and Digital Cultures Massive Open Online Course) class. I combined other attempts at making a digital artefact into this final digital artefact and I was struck by my husband's reaction to it. I asked him if it was good, "Hon, do you think this will pass?" And he answered me with what I think this whole class was about: "Did you do it for the grade? Or did you do it to learn?"

Learning = Hard-earned Joy

What an amazing question! It captured the heart of learning. Many times in traditional school I did things for the grade. But there were other moments in school where I truly enjoyed, where I truly learned. And I would do those courses or classes again just for the sheer joy. In fact, I remember summers where I would glory in all the free time I had to read, just read. I would look up new words in the dictionary and I would just keep going. Those were magical days. I realize that real learning is like that. You keep going, you keep pushing at the edges because you just want to: curiosity, passion, enjoyment. I surely don't want to rob my kids of the pure enjoyment of learning. Of course, it's not all enjoyment. There was a degree of difficulty I had to overcome. And "getting it" is also a kind of hard-earned bliss that can't be matched by treats or novelties.

And that was what I got at the end of the course: a hard-earned joy. I remember those frustrating nights when one video just took forever to load and I was getting bleary-eyed with sleep deprivation. I remember trekking to a nearby coffee shop just to get at least three hours of concentration to write my blogs about the course. I remember being overwhelmed by the sheer numbers in the class and the list of tools for creating the digital artifact. I remember moments of insight that I couldn't help but turn to my husband and share what I just learned from a video or from an online essay. It was all worth it.

Going Digital With Our Homeschool Curriculum

Just yesterday, we attended a family convention conducted by the provider of our homeschool curriculum, The Master's Academy, and they introduced a new pilot project called Genyo.com.ph, an online supplemental course that includes five core subjects including our mother language, Filipino (this is something that's really hard to find online). But by then...I had already discovered IXL.com and Salman Khan's absolutely wonderful Khan Academy. My son is already enrolled in IXL and he just loves earning his medals and achieving mastery with each subject. He has a love for Math that I never had.

I think Genyo.com.ph was introduced to us just in time, especially after having attended this EDCMOOC. I could look at it all within the context of what we had just digested. We signed up right away and I'm excited to try it out with my son.

Not For The Grade But For The Learning

Taking this course has really challenged my idea of how to check for learning. Assessment and test scores have their place but they are not the be-all and end-all of learning. Far from it. Now I see that there are other innovative ways of engaging kids and really helping them learn. Now I see the importance of creating portfolios (the term that our homeschool provider uses....which is a different term for artifacts). These are project opportunities that can combine several subjects so that the student can really see how all of them can be combined for something that is important to him or to the community. Projects put things in perspective and holistically integrates different subjects into a common theme. I think this is more important and a better gauge of analysis and creation than just pure grades.

Purposeful, imaginative learning

I thought that the exploration of posthumanism and transhumanism was really important in coming back to a key concept: challenging humanity's purpose. It's not an easy question to answer. It takes whole lifetimes. It is an ongoing project and it is far from over. It is something that gives context as well to the way I am teaching my kids. It's good to always put the background of purpose in everything we do. What's the point? That's something that I want my kids to learn to ask as well.

What will get us through this shared project is imagination. That's why I really value stories. I especially loved the stories that came out in the films and Sci Fi books (I downloaded some as additional reading after the class). The best of stories are never didactic and never have a hard edged "lesson" to learn. The best of stories help us ask questions and imagine scenarios. The best of stories help us make sense of who we are...and points us to our own stories and perspectives, fortifying them or challenging them. This is what I can give to my kids: the love of searching for more stories, reading them and making their own.

I really loved this class and I will miss it.

But wait. There are still a lot of MOOCs waiting. Onwards then!

Update as of March 5, 2013: I am signed up with the CS50 Introduction to Computer Science of Harvard (EDX). I have also signed up to two more classes on Coursera: 1) Design, Creation of Artifacts in Society (University of Pennsylvania) and 2) Children Acquiring Literacy Naturally (UC Santa Cruz).  Looking forward to blogging my updates on this journey.

#EDCMOOC Week 4: Faster, Higher, Stronger...But To What Purpose?

#EDCMOOC Week 4: Faster, Higher, Stronger...But To What Purpose?
Redefining the Human

My #EDCMOOC (eLearning and Digital Cultures Massive Open Online Course) posts spring from my participation in the course offered for free by the University of Edinburgh via Coursera.org.

By Justine C. Tajonera




Image from kidrobot.blogspot.com

As Week 4 of EDCMOOC drew to a close and the topic moved to transhumanism, I started asking the question: but to what purpose? It was a common question that occurred to me as I watched the films and read the papers.

Week 4 Films

Robbie

This surprisingly moving short film takes on a core theme of popular cyberculture - the possibility of machinic sentience and the questions advanced artificial intelligence raise about what it means to be human. Here, the boundary between human and machine is questioned - if Robbie is capable of experiencing loneliness, happiness, faith and friendship, in what senses is he not human? If the humanistic principles of autonomy, rationality, self-awareness, responsibility, resilience and so on can be held by an artificial intelligence within a mechanical form, what does that say about the extent to which they rely on human cognition and the flesh of a human body to give ‘human’ meaning to the experience of the world?

Indeed, if Robbie can experience loneliness, happiness, faith and friendship...there is little, if not nothing, that distinguishes him from the human being. If humanistic principles can be held by artificial intelligence...it does stretch the meaning of "human." It brings up the question of these "children of technology." I imagine the pathos that Roy Batty in Blade Runner evoked in his "tears in the rain" soliloquy. How could this replicant not have humanity if in all his words he reflects the principles of human transcendence? This is a question that I'm still grappling with. I have no definitive answers when it comes to the artificial human vs. the human. All I know is: it's worth pondering upon now.

Gumdrop

A vacuum-cleaning robot actress who doesn’t do hallucinogenics or nudity? Gumdrop will cheer you up after Robbie. She raises many of the same questions, but this time there are differences - literally - of voice and of embeddedness in the human world. For once, the vision of a posthuman future is not dystopic...

Yes, I did find Gumdrop cheerful. But it made me think about her autonomy too. She was made to be a "vacuum machine" and yet in this world she has the autonomy to be an actress...to perform, to evaluate art and to produce art. She embodies the humanist principle of having "no limits" to what can be achieved despite being "made" for a certain purpose.

What will happen in a world where machines produced to do certain types of work rise up and demand to have the same rights and autonomies of human beings? This is no different from slave uprisings in the past. Who gives "the human" the right to be the "master" of other sentient beings? What if those sentient beings surpass the human's capabilities? Then what? Again, as I mentioned earlier, these are worth thinking about now.

True Skin

‘No-one wants to be entirely organic. No-one wants to get sick, or old, or die. My only choice was to enhance.’ In the future-world of True Skin, synthetic enhancement is normal, and the boundary between human and machinic body has been erased. Where Robbie and Gumdrop look at the human in the robot, True Skin considers the robotic in the human. In particular, you might want to think about the final scene of the movie in which another core sci-fi fantasy - memory backup - is drawn on. What does this notion say about the nature of mind, memory and learning, and the ways in which technological mediation is positioned in relation to it?

True Skin makes the assumption that consciousness is information/ data that can be "backed up." It makes me think of "Permutation City" in Katherine Hayles' paper, Wrestling with Transhumanism, wherein uploaders all commit suicide within fifteen minutes of coming to awareness.

It makes the case that if "consciousness" is data/ information... it can definitely be enhanced by machines and memory chips. Technological mediation can "enhance" one's mind...it can, in fact, take your mind and replicate it (or replace it) with a machine structure.

For me, this is contentious. I think consciousness is not merely data. There is something other than data that makes consciousness possible. I'm not saying that machines will *never* be capable of consciousness. But I'm just saying that consciousness does not equal data.

Avatar Days

Interviews with players of the online game World of Warcraft are placed over a seamless merging of virtual and real life. This is another play on the messiness of our division of the human and non-human, this time within the context of avatar creation and role play. What does the final section of this film in particular reveal about the relationship between player and avatar, between the human and the simulation? What versions of the human are opened up here, and which are closed down?

The final section juxtaposes the characters with their human "creators" or counterparts as mirrors. Avatars are a reflection of the human controlling it. In another context, in another world, these are what these humans would be like: killers, saviors, bandits, warriors. They are all "enhancements" of the human being. Versions of the human opened up here are different kinds of existences based on different environments. If human beings could occupy different environments...they would have different aspects that don't develop in the "normal" or "real" world. In a sense, these "fantasy selves" might reflect what these humans would opt for in a transhuman world wherein you could pick your "enhancement" or "superpower." In this film, it is concluded that players of World of Warcraft are no different from other humans who have "passions." Here, the enhancements are in context of human "passions," whatever those might be. In the transhuman argument, these passions are the justification to whatever technological mediations are used by human beings.

Core

Bostrom (2005) ‘Transhumanist values’ reproduced from Review of Contemporary Philosophy, Vol. 4, May (2005)

Transhumanism is very different from the more critical modes of posthumanism that were touched on last week, in the Badmington article in particular. Where critical posthumanists see posthumanism primarily as a philosophical stance which, among other things, draws attention to the inequalities and injustices often wrought in the name of ‘the human’, transhumanists in general see ‘human values’ as a good, though incomplete, project. For transhumanists, ‘humanity’ is a temporary, flawed condition: the future of human evolution is in the direction of a post-human future state in which technological progress has freed us from the inconveniences of limited lifespan, sickness, misery and intellectual limitation. Transhumanism, in summary, is to a large extent based on the extension of the humanistic principles of rationality, scientific progress and individual freedom that critical posthumanists would question.

This article by Nick Bostrom (Oxford University) - whose work is at the more academically respectable end of what can be a fairly uneven field - does a good job of summarising the transhumanist position, though it’s important when reading this to understand that he does not use the term ‘posthuman’ in the sense that, for example, Badmington does. What is your own response to the ‘values’ he proposes? Do you find them attractive or repellent? On what basis? Bostrom mentions education a few times here: what might his vision of transhumanism mean for the future of education? What would a transhumanist theory of education look like?

I found myself questioning a lot of the "values" that Bostrom proposes. These were my primary questions:
- What is the point of a "freed up" life?
- No death, no sickness, no misery. Doesn't that also add up to "no life?"
- Transhumanism is desirable in whose point of view?
- When we talk about responsible use of technology and the modification of human beings...once again, in whose point of view?
- when we talk of a "fairer and better" society...from whose point of view? In a world where some humans don't want to be transhuman...will that disqualify them from being part of this "fairer and better" society?
- When we talk of living lives "worth living" who is to judge if these indeed are lives worth living? We talk of Beethoven, Goethe...but we don't talk about the Adolf Hitlers. What would a transhuman Hitler be capable of?

I am not saying that these ideas were entirely repellent. I just found myself questioning the point of view that was being taken. For example, I totally agree with respect for all sentience. I totally agree with alleviating human suffering. But when I start thinking of a radically enhanced life that lengthens life spans...I think: "To what purpose?" While we haven't answered the question of "To what purpose" what exactly are we extending? Acquisition of knowledge and wisdom are entirely possible within a lifetime. But we would still be asking the same questions, wouldn't we? We would still be asking ourselves why we are alive, why we exist.

I imagine the life of a vampire, for example. They can live centuries. But at some point...they too question why they are alive for so long. What is the point of everlasting life? Does it matter if it is lived here on earth or if it is as some other type of existence or sentience? Death doesn't necessarily mean the end of life for me. Perhaps it is just what I stand for and what I believe. Death is a door to another life. And that is not necessarily such a bad thing.

Bostrom talks about education. He makes this statement: "A person's life can be transformed radically by getting an education." His idea of education is in the context of creating "great works" and "great projects" that might take more than one lifetime. For him, education is the promotion of the transhumanist values of saving lives, expanding thinking and "open-mindedness."

Transhumanist education theory, I suppose, would always question assumptions and move towards "progress."

I don't disagree with this. But I believe the transhumanist theory is insufficient for the kind of progress we are making with technology. I go back to my own utopia of "biological gestalt." I don't distrust machines. But I do value sentience and harmony with all sentience, the world, the universe. I value larger thinking, contextual thinking. That is why I question the point of progress. What are we progressing towards? What is all the modification for? *That* I think is the question that needs to be answered before we go and modify ourselves and others.

Looking through this lens, I go back to my own home schooling efforts and the education I want for my son. What is the point of his education? I want him to learn how to think...how to learn, re-learn, un-learn and learn again. I want him to be ready for a world that cannot be predicted...whether it is a posthuman, transhuman world...I think it is essential that he knows that humans are valuable...but not *more* valuable than others. I want him to see a larger context. And I also see how his spiritual development plays a part in his education. Bostrom talks about a moral urgency. This comes from having a point of view about what life is for and what there is after life.

Advanced

Hayles N K (2011) Wrestling with transhumanism.

N Katherine Hayles (Duke University), author of the influential 1999 text How we became posthuman, here constructs a challenge to transhumanism which presents a useful contrast to the Bostrom text; even if you don’t want to delve too much into the advanced reading this week, we’d recommend you read the opening part, simply for the critique Hayles provides of the transhumanist position.

Hayles argues that the framework within which transhumanism considers the future of human evolution and technological advance is ‘too narrow and ideologically fraught with individualism and neoliberal philosophy to be fully up to the task’. Via a critical reading of some classic works of science fiction, she argues that we need a more nuanced, and more politically defensible, series of perspectives than those offered by the theorists and proponents of transhumanist philosophy. The first part of the essay explores some of the problems with the individualistic focus of transhumanism, while the second half uses the literary perspective to more fully explore the issues at stake.

In a sense her argument here is also an argument for the way this course has been set up: by placing the artefacts of popular culture alongside contemporary philosophy and theory, we can gain a richer view of the implications of technological shift for our world and our work. Do you agree? Do you find Hayles’ refutation of transhumanism convincing? And why, given that she clearly has very sound critical reasons for her dislike of transhumanism, does she continue to liken her relationship with it to a ‘relationship with an obsessive and very neurotic lover’?

Yes, I totally agree. I especially love the perspective that she puts forth: "Imagining the future is never a politically innocent or ethically neutral act. To arrive at the future we want, we must first be able to imagine it as fully as we can, including all the contexts in which its consequences will play out." In this I wholeheartedly agree. No manifesto or set of principles will be able to answer the complicated questions that transhumanism brings up.

I don't think she totally refutes transhumanism. She questions its framework. She simply states that transhumanism is "not up to the task." It is inadequate. In that I agree. I don't think transhumanism takes into consideration a lot of the questions I ask.

I guess she likens her relationship with transhumanism as a "relationship with an obsessive and very neurotic lover" because transhumanism has simply not gone away. It is still a topic of debate and fascination. I, too, am horrified at the possibilities...but I am drawn to the possibility as well. "What if?" The very idea of bringing up "uploaders" and an enhanced generation is enough to spur the imagination.

But as Hayles cautions...it is very tempting to go for an "enhanced" existence but first we must imagine it fully...including all the consequences of such an existence. For the imagined scenario...I ask: What is it for? What will a highly malleable human be like? Will that "new" human being replace us? Will that even be bad? I have not even fully answered the question: where does my sentience come from? These are eternal questions. And even when we do evolve...they will be the same questions we ask. What is all this for?

Perspectives on education

System Upgrade:realising the vision for UK education (2012) EPSRC Technology Enhanced Learning Research Programme.

This report may seem a long way from the sci-fi fantasies and far-fetched human futures envisioned in our other readings and films this week. However, it is presented here as a chance to look at how the themes of enhancement, transformation and technological advance - so important to the literatures and imaginaries of transhumanism - occur and recur, generally unquestioned, across the more everyday literatures of online education. ‘Technology-enhanced learning’ appears to have become the new acceptable term globally for what used to be called ‘e-learning’, but if we look at this term through the lens of transhumanist thought, what new perspectives on online education does it reveal?

This reading is a summary of the report from a large, recent UK research programme (2007-12) which was explicitly concerned with the technological enhancement of learning. There is much in the report which is unexceptionable. However, in reading it, you should consider what vision for education and technology is being forged here. In particular, what has the language used in the report inherited - consciously or otherwise - from the popular and philosophical discourses of transhumanism? How are terms like ‘transformation’, ‘enhancement’ and ‘empowerment’ used? What relationship between the human and the technological is being described? Is the vision here a useful one for us to work with as educators and as learners? What alternative visions might we pursue? Which ‘system’ is being ‘upgraded’?

Definitely, the language in the report borrows from the transhumanism philosophy. "There is no sign that technology is being adequately exploited for teaching and learning." The term "exploited" being the key term, that technology can be mined for the enhancement of the human being.

Terms "transformation," "enhancement," and "empowerment" are all used in the service of the human being, the learner. The relationship between the human and the technological is one of the "use" determination. Because technology is there...it must be exploited. There is much "power" out there. It should be put into the service of education.

This kind of vision is useful to a certain extent. Indeed, it is unrealistic to expect schools, educators and learners to continue without using the devices that proliferate society.

But the more useful perspective to take, in my view, is that of the contextual, polyvalent view. Everything must be taken with a grain of salt and not accepted, lock, stock and barrel. An alternate vision I want to take is that of "projects" as a way of applying learning. I do agree that this age approaches the end of scarcity...especially in terms of access to information. But acquiring information is not enough...in fact, it was never enough. What do we do with the information? What do we do with what was learned? For me, not even tests or assessment scores will measure if the learner has indeed learned. It is in the actual application of what was learned that the true test of learning becomes apparent.

The "system" being upgraded in the TEL report is the education system. But I don't agree that a mere upgrade will solve the "problem." A re-thinking of the system is called for. We cannot rely on the existing system and simply boost it. The system, the structure, needs to be re-worked.

Carr, M. (2008) Is Google making us stupid?

This final reading pulls together many of the themes we’ve touched on over the period of the course. It’s an interesting one to read alongside the ‘TEL’ report above, thinking about how relations between the human and the technological are differently worked in each. If the TEL report creates a vision in which technology is under individual or societal control (technology in the TEL report is ‘harnessed’, ‘utilised’, ‘developed’, ‘employed’ in the interests of enhancement), in the Carr article it is human faculties which are under the control of the technology. For Carr, our media environments develop their own logic, to which we adapt socially and physiologically. In a return to a now familiar theme, ‘human nature’ and ‘human being’ is ‘made’ in response to technological shift. Yet this ‘making’ of the human is far from the vision of empowerment and enhancement that we have seen in the readings on transhumanism, and in the vision of education and technology that we saw presented in the TEL report.

‘As we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence’, concludes Carr. Is it possible to counter the technological determinism of this view, without resorting to over-simplistic assertions of human dominance over technology? How should we respond, as teachers and learners, to the idea that the internet damages our capacity to think?

I think it is possible to counter the technological determinism that Carr brings up in his article by bringing up holistic and contextual thinking. As I saw earlier in Week 3, the human being is not the end-all and be-all of existence. But that doesn't devalue the human being at all. That puts the human being in context of the world, of the universe, of all sentience. I agree that technology is powerful...I also agree that the human being is not in total control of technology and that the structure of technology can alter the way human beings think and interact. But I do not discount the human being's agency and choice. I think we are capable of coming up with collective principles (other than those of the transhumanist). It will be a long process. As Hayle, in her paper, Wrestling with Transhumanism, points out, we need to prepare ourselves to think through the momentous changes in human life and advanced technologies make possible. We must imagine it in the most holistic terms.

As a parent, both a teacher and a learner, the idea that the internet damages our capacity to think is simply not all true. I am still capable of reading long tracts of text. I do know that I have the tendency to get distracted by the internet and its structure (Facebook, for example!) but I can choose to empty my space from distraction. It is a matter of choice. Being aware of what I am immersed in is a start. This is something I can teach myself and this is something I can teach my children.
In the end, all this talk of enhancement and even education points to the most basic, the most fundamental of all human questions: Why am I alive? What is my purpose? Not even transhumanism can answer this. And the Internet, for all its computing power, can only point to but not provide the ultimate answer.

#EDCMOOC Week 3: Seeing Humanity as Part of and Not The Center of the Universe

#EDCMOOC Week 3: Seeing Humanity as Part Of and Not the Center of the Universe
Being human

Image from discoverystudentadventure.blogspot.com

My #EDCMOOC (eLearning and Digital Cultures Massive Open Online Course) posts spring from my participation in the course offered for free by the University of Edinburgh via Coursera.org.

Film 1: Toyota GT86

The opposition created here is between digital technology as ‘unreal’ and de-humanising, and the natural world as authentic and living; how does this opposition continue to be played out in popular discussions about technology-mediated education?

The natural vs. technology-mediated is most prominent in Monke's argument for the human touch. As a parent, it's also commonsensical to think that going out to see a real tree is vastly different from accessing a tree simulation on a computer or tablet. More senses are engaged, the whole context of the tree is accessible. But is digital technology necessarily "unreal" and de-humanising? It depends on one's perspective and how one sees the role of humans. It's arguable that the world of nature doesn't necessarily favor human values. The natural world favors the beast of prey, the strongest, the fittest. Here, human values of "kindness" and "compassion" are not compatible. One is not necessarily "better" than the other.

Film 2: BT heart to heart ad

This advert takes on the theme of mediation and, again, the nature of ‘authentic’ human contact. What aspects of ‘the human’ do you see as being ‘re-asserted’ here? Can you link this clip with the notion of ‘the illusion of non-mediation’ referenced in the Kolowich article we are also looking at?

The aspects of "the human" that is being re-asserted here is that nothing can replace human communication in all its aspects. That means, the closer the communication between humans (the more senses engaged), the better. This "illusion of non-mediation" is emphasized by Kolowich when he calls for more video and interaction between and among students and the teacher.

For me, this actually depends on what the communication is for. In cultures where non-confrontation is valued, then mediation actually helps.

Film 3: World Builder

World builder is a short film which explores some of the same themes (simulation, immersion, artifice) as the Toyota advertisement, though in a slightly more nuanced way. What is your interpretation of this film? In what ways does it position ‘the human’ in relation to the technological? What does it say about ways in which human emotion can be manipulated by digital simulation?

This film reminded me of another film, Inception, wherein a human can use his or her imagination and create an immersive experience. In this kind of scenario, the "real" and the "simulated" can be be confused or mistaken for the other. In the film, it is still the human that creates the simulation and this simulation can evoke "human feelings" in the object of the simulation. This is the more positive aspect of the simulation. In the negative sense, as in Inception, the simulation can be used to replace "real life."

Film 4: They're made out of meat

This short film has a darkly comic grounding idea which we won’t spoil here! The vision of humanity it constructs is one which is rich but also slightly repellent - it works to make the notion of ‘the human’ seem strange. What conclusions might you draw from this about the human body, and whether we can see the body as providing a stable basis for defining what it means to be human? This is a theme we will return to in week 4.

The conclusion I drew from the film is: we are organic...but not all-organic or all-material. Humans are made out of muscle, bone, fluid...and the elusive "consciousness" which is not material. Definitely, the body cannot be a stable basis for defining what it means to be human as what makes "us" human is precisely the non-material "consciousness," or "soul."

Ideas and Interpretations

Humanity 2.0: Defining humanity by Steve Fuller (TEDxWarwick)

Why does Professor Fuller say (almost as a joke) that education is ‘a dying art’?

He talks about education as a dying art in context of discussing an "artifice" of humanity introduced by the Greeks, Paideia: inhabiting the right mental space to deal with others and the world. Education, when viewed in context of assessment, "leveling up" and preparing children and adolescents for "work," loses its connection to Paideia or the human ideal of right mental space in dealing with others and the world.

Professor Fuller argues that there’s historical precedent for considering only some homo sapiens to be ‘human’: what are the political implications of this in contemporary times? And how might such a notion position education?

Only some Homo sapiens as "human" can be linked back to the time of slavery when some humans are considered as not having any inherent rights. Political implications of this become apparent when, in some instances, some humans lose their right of autonomy (the disabled, the mentally ill, etc.) and the institutions that decide who should have the right of autonomy. This affects education in the sense that education is considered a human right. If one does not "qualify" as human...then one is not entitled to education. One can see this even until today in some Middle Eastern countries where females are not considered as having the right to education.

He suggests that we are questioning the very existence of the ‘human’ because we have failed in the humanist project (for example, we are far from achieving racial, gender or class equality): do you believe this?

In a sense, yes, because racial, gender or class equality are far from the status of "achieved" in some parts of Africa and the Middle East.65 million girls in the world are denied the basic right to education.

In claiming that ‘the old humanistic project should not be dropped’, Professor Fuller links his talk to our key theme of re-asserting the human. His stance seems to be that ‘you can only be morally credible’ if you are addressing issues of human freedom and equality. Thinking about education specifically, might we see MOOCs as an example of an ‘old humanistic project’, particularly in the promise they appear to offer for democratisation, equality of access and so on?

I definitely see how a MOOC is an example of the "old humanistic project" in the sense that it has given me, someone who belongs to the "third world," equal access to an education course from university that I would, otherwise, not have been able to access. I also don't see why the "old humanistic project" should be dropped. Maybe it should be updated to put humanity in context of a larger universe.

Post-humanism, Neil Badmington

This chapter is the editor’s introduction to a collection of essays by thinkers on posthumanism. It gives a very useful overview of some of the philosophical and cultural bases for arriving at a position we might reasonably call ‘posthuman’. It is important to understand that ‘posthumanism’ is not simply another way of talking about cyborgs or other fantasies of human enhancement - it has a philosophical and critical inheritance which is far more to do with the question of how we define and value what it means to be human. In this sense, it is much more theoretically rich than the ‘transhumanism’ with which it is sometimes confused.

Unlike the other readings this week, Badmington’s text is not really about the ‘re-assertion’ of the human - rather it is about achieving a richer understanding of how the human and the posthuman relate to each other, and it provides a theoretical basis for our move into considerations of the posthuman next week. Use this reading to give some historical and critical perspective to the questions raised by the film festival, and by the historical overview of the ambiguity of ‘the human’ given by Steve Fuller.

Post humanism is important to study in the sense that the human is not all about conscious thinking. Much of our lives are governed by the subconscious, the automatic reaction. Knowing more about ourselves challenges us to always go beyond what we already know and seek to discover new paradigms. Is there value in going beyond paradigms? This question is in the vein of, "Is it important to know our purpose?" It isimportant...at least to us. It gives us something to aspire for and work for while we are alive.

Perspectives on Education

Kolowich, The Human Element

This article attempts to make a case for the inclusion of more video and audio in online teaching, in order to increase the sense of presence and ‘human-touch’ for distance learners. Articles like this are standard fare in popular discussions of technology-mediated education. What happens if we look at it from a perspective informed by the readings we have been doing this week? If we accept that ‘humanity’ is an ambiguous category at best, where does that leave claims like the ones made here for ‘the human element’ as a touchstone for good course design? And why are video and audio constructed here as being ‘more human’ than, for example, text? What assumptions are at play here, and what do they say about the broader discourses which dominate discussions of technology and education?

As I mentioned earlier, "humanity" as rational thought using all of the senses is in question already. As in the paper on posthumanism, humans are not always guided by rational thought. "The human touch," as Kolowich calls it...depends on who is learning and what the learning is for. If one would argue that the only way a human could learn would be through all the senses...then technology-mediated courses should be scrapped altogether. There is an underlying assumption on what it is to be human and what it is to be "more human." The fact is, different people learn different ways and it doesn't have to do with the technology being "more or less" human.

Monke, The Human Touch

Monke’s article is a plea for a re-thinking of education policy prioritising technological ‘literacy’ in schools from the earliest years of education. It is intriguing to read this in the context of some of the thinking we’ve been exploring in this and previous weeks. Here are some questions you might consider in reading and discussing this:

Monke relies on a set of principles defined by ‘human purpose and meaning’ which set ‘the human’ very much in opposition to the technological. Technology education should be driven by ‘human values’ rather than by the prerogatives of the technology - is this simply a re-working of the ‘technology should follow pedagogy’ mantra we have already discussed?

Yes, I believe so. "Technology" as tool. However, as our previous readings have also pointed out: technology has also shaped our social lives such that it is no longer simply a tool but also a kind of reality that we live in.

What kinds of divisions and oppositions does Monke set up between nature and technology? Between experience and mediation? Between ‘inner’ resources and external power? Between information and meaning? And what kind of perspective on ‘human nature’ does he rely on to maintain these divisions?

Monke makes this conclusion: “There have been no advances (measured by higher academic achievement of urban, suburban, or rural students) over the past decade that can be confidently attributed to broader access to computers. . . . The link between test-score improvements and computer availability and use is even more contested.”

In a way, Monke is also relying on a model of education that is also being contested in this day and age: that test-scores are the best way to measure learning. Monke assigns nature, experience, "inner" resources, and "meaning" higher values over technology, mediation, and external power. This is an "either or" type of thinking that might not serve anymore when one sees each pair not as opposed to each other but linked together. It depends on who is looking. He is obviously coming from the "humanistic" world view that puts humanity at the center of creation.

Does his vision of education count as one of Steve Fuller’s ‘old humanist projects’ - the kinds of projects we need to ensure our ‘moral credibility’? Or is it simply a luddite view which fails to ‘get’ the new ways of being human that technology makes possible?

I think Monke's measure of learning is still dated in the industrial times. Why shouldn't it be possible to teach children direction, morality and ethics even as we employ technology? They are not necessarily opposed to each other.

We might find it quite easy to agree with his statement that young people should be helped to ‘think about, not just with, technology’, but do we need to depend on an oppositional relationship between the human and the technological to do this?

Essentially, no. Technology is not necessarily against what is human. What we take for granted is how much importance we put on being human over other forms of existence. What if we looked at humanity as side-by-side and as important as other life forms? What if we looked at humanity from the broader perspective?

#EDCMOOC Week 2: Imagining, Learning/Yearning and Who's Looking?

#EDCMOOC Week 2: Looking to the future
Imagining, Learning/ Yearning and Who's Looking?

My #EDCMOOC (eLearning and Digital Cultures Massive Open Online Course) posts spring from my participation in the course offered for free by the University of Edinburgh via Coursera.org.

by Justine C. Tajonera

Images of future worlds

Corporate "visions of the future" like Corning's A Day Made of Glass 2 and Microsoft's Productivity Future Vision seem like utopias to me, worlds where technology serve our purposes perfectly. I noticed, though, that there was nothing fundamentally different in education: there is a traditional school set up the Corning video and the little girl in the Microsoft video is doing "homework" and preparing for a traditional bake sale (most likely for school). Everything is just enhanced. Communication is enhanced. Collaboration is enhanced.

These are in stark contrast to the more dystopian videos of Sight and Charlie 13, where a suspicion of where technology could lead are taken up. In Sight, technology can be used to "reboot" even humans. In Charlie 13, it's a bit unclear what lies "outside the grid" but just having a choice is enough to represent hope. The same theme is repeated in Plurality...there is a resistance movement against a mandatory wired grid. It presents a dystopia disguised as utopia: a world with low crime rates, a world of order and peace...but at what cost? The question that I ask myself is: Is there a choice outside utopia and dystopia?

Metaphors, story lines and floating Things

Which brings me to the next set of resources for Week 2 that touch on frameworks. Johnston's paper is uncanny in that it captures precisely either a utopian or dystopian view of technology in a series of editorials. Language, at least for us human beings, is everything. It creates the world for us. As in my first blog on EDCMOOC, I value diversity so it disturbs me that I am presented with either salvation or destruction. Does everything redound to a binary? I value structure to that point that it contains chaos. But I'm interested to see how we can paint a future that is neither impossibly shiny and bright nor bleak and totalitarian.

Caption: One of the funnier RH bill memes going around on social media

I enjoyed Newitz' talk on the four story lines of science fiction that is playing out with the advance of technology. I was particularly struck by instant social revolution. In my country, the Philippines, our RH (reproductive health) bill has just passed into law and I think a large part of the conversation happened on social media. This blog by a Jesuit priest is just one example of the conversations that were sparked by this deeply divisive bill. The centuries old influence of the Catholic bishops is eroding. This might not have been as speedy without the open access to social media that Filipinos have. We are not confrontational, face-to-face, but we have taken on technology heartily (starting with text messaging in the late 90s and early 2000s) because it became a venue for us to freely express ourselves.

While I do see the danger of a surveillance culture, especially when Things/ Blogjects can become agents...I also see how these same platforms, Things, points of access can be tools of revolt, reimagining, renewal. Here, I see my "uses determination" showing its head again.

What education?

I found the back-and-forth between Shirky and Brady amusing. One employs the "you can't stop technology" approach using the example of the demise of Napster (but the rise of the MP3) while the other defends the status quo and accuses MOOCs of being parasitic and profit-driven. Both approached it from the status quo...with one using technology to enhance, to improve...to topple the status quo while the other was suspicious of what drives the adoption of technology. Perhaps he is even asking: what's wrong with what we have now?

I think I caught a glimpse of a third perspective that I want to purse in Campbell's Ecologies of Learning. Now is the time to ask the right questions. Do we produce more of what we have? Do we now produce it in scale?

Caption: Will Richardson's book, Why School?

Or can we go back to the question of: why is this so important? What is this all for? I also read this in Will Richardson's single/ paper, Why School? Indeed, why? Richardson talks about a world where information is available at a touch of a button... we are in an era of abundance. But what do we do with it? How do shape learning in this kind of environment?

Learning how to fly

Caption: My son wants to be a pilot. Giving him a flight simulator on an iPad would have been impossible a decade ago.

Why are we caught up in utopia or dystopia? Does it matter? Will it help me answer a question that I am passionate about? Here, I experienced the "double take" that Campbell talks about. In this world, I don't want to be a "schooler." I yearn to understand what it will take to make this Earth habitable for my children and my children's children. That was why I took up Sustainability offered as a MOOC by the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. I am bewildered by the explosion of technology and how I can harness it so that my six year old son can use it in the service of thinking for himself and finding what he is passionate about. Just recently, I realized that he mentioned that he wants to be a pilot. Why didn't I think about it before? Instead of just taking him to aviation museums and air shows...I could actually download flight simulations from the App Store. This, more than any number of exercises on addition and subtraction, will motivate him to learn...to genuinely understand what it takes to get a machine in the air, experience flight, and land it safely. Of course, addition, subtraction...and more to come...will be part of what he needs to learn. But now he has context.

And it is the same for me. Will technology be a utopia or a dystopia in society and in education? It depends on who is looking. And that's why I'm excited about Week 3: Being human.

#EDCMOOC Week 1: Appreciating a Polyvalent and Complex View of Technology

#EDCMOOC Week 1: Looking To The Past
Appreciating a Polyvalent and Complex View of Technology

My #EDCMOOC (eLearning and Digital Cultures Massive Open Online Course) posts spring from my participation in the course offered for free by the University of Edinburgh via Coursera.org.

by Justine C. Tajonera

I signed up for the eLearning and Digital Cultures course because I am a mother coming to grips with how to bring up and educate my children in today's world. My husband and I are currently homeschooling our eldest boy (six years old). My husband and I came to this decision because we saw the benefits of real learning, discovery and one-on-one guidance (I finally got to see the statistics behind this in Daphne Koller's talk on TED:



I'm eternally grateful to the kind soul who posted the link to the 10 Best Talks on eLearning from TED). We experimented and attended talks on homeschooling here in Manila and we chose a program that's had thirteen years of experience and research. Apart from the textbooks, though, we felt that we had a great resource in the Internet. Just this first week of EDC was a great revelation to me. Despite the amount of information available, I never really focused on eLearning for home schooling purposes (this, despite the fact that I've already taken a course on Sustainability offered by the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign via Coursera.org). My eyes have been opened. I'm starting to see that we made the right choice. And not only that, we have a limitless resource in our hands.

Starting from a Perspective: Utopia and Dystopia

source: en.wikipedia.org

I thoroughly enjoyed watching the short films from our Week 1 Resources. The question that was asked: There are many utopian and dystopian stories about technology told in popular films from Metropolis to the Matrix. Can you think of an example and describe or share it in the discussion board, on your blog, or on Twitter?

There are many examples of dystopias (and utopias that are actually dystopias in disguise) but not very many utopias, I think. It brought me back to one of the utopias that I cherished from childhood: Twilight Zone's Episode 17b, Quarantine (1986). It tells the story of Matthew Foreman who wakes up to a different society, one that he mistakenly calls "backward" until he finds out that they have achieved "biological gestalt," a world where "technology" has been replaced by awareness and spiritual growth and where the organic replaces the mechanical. I won't go into the plot, here, but I became aware of my own biases when it comes to "technology" and "progress." I enjoyed that particular TV episode because it paints the picture of a world that I want to live in, a world where diversity, harmony, spirituality and living with the earth (instead of using it and depleting it) are of utmost value.

Detecting Biases and Perspectives

Coming from there, I realize that I have a suspicion of technology. I won't beat myself up over it. I think it's very normal to come from somewhere. Reading Dahlberg's paper on Internet Research: Towards a Non-Reductionist Approach, I see the value of not just focusing on one perspective of technology.

Another question asked: Which of these perspectives (uses determination, technological determination, or social determination), do you lean towards in your understanding of the relationship between technology and pedagogy? Can you point to instances in society or in your own context where this stance is necessary or useful?

I now see that I was leaning towards a uses determination. I think that the user ("I") is perfectly in control of technology. But that is not really the case. I think it's useful to have this perspective up to a certain point only...maybe as a parent who can direct my children's interaction with technology...and the way technology is used for learning purposes. But I also see how I need to be aware of the other aspects of technology (it's own structure and the way it was, and continues to be, created and organized by society) for me to really tap into the opportunities that it presents.

Education, Big Business and "The New World"

John Daniel's paper, "Technology is the Answer: What was the Question? "  reminded me what education is for: learning, discovery, and eventually, contribution.

Using Daniel’s four “b”s - bias, bull, breadth and balance - what observations can you make about his utopian arguments about education? What currency do they continue to have in this field?

I noticed that Daniel is leaning towards "progress" and that it is just a matter of finding the right tools, choosing the right vendors. There is an equation in his argument made up of access, quality and cost. The idea is to increase the access, increase the quality and lower the cost. But of course, it is not as simple as that. Based on what I've read from Will Richardson's book, Why School? (TED book), maybe we don't even need reform, we need a drastically different way of seeing education as a whole.

I saw the same thing in Noble's Paper on Digital Diploma Mills: the Automation of Higher Learning which took a more negative approach.

Why does Noble say that technology is a ‘vehicle’ and a ‘disguise’ for the commercialization of higher education? How can we relate this early concern with commercialism to current debates about MOOCs, for example? And how are concerns about ‘automation’ and ‘redundant faculty’ still being played out today?

There is a bias here on economic determination. He is talking about how technology is controlled by commercial owners, by school administrations operating as businesses. There is much to be skeptical about when "big money" starts controlling the picture. However, I think it's also very extreme not to see how technology can serve the genuine learning and discovery of children. What is wrong with "automation" when, as Salman Khan (of KhanAcademy.org) points out, children can learn concepts when they can pause and repeat "lectures" (or explanations by a competent teacher) without any judgment? I think some of these concerns have been addressed by non-profit organizations such as Coursera.org and KhanAcademy.org.

Migration And Diversity

Reading Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants by Prensky, I became starkly aware of myself as a digital immigrant. I was fortunate (or unfortunate?) enough to see the actual day when there was no Internet and when there was Internet. I remember listening with incredulity as a schoolmate explained the Internet to me: it's open to everyone, it was developed by the U.S. military, but somehow it became mainstream, and you can find out absolutely anything because all the information stored on this super highway is available to anyone with a computer and a modem. I remember the thrill of hearing the modem connect because I was going to get some email. I remember learning how to text message (adapting from slow typing to typing while doing other things).

When reading this paper (Prensky), try to identify the strategies that Prensky uses to make his argument - how does the language he uses work to persuade the reader? Who are ‘we’ and who are ‘they’? What associations do you have with the idea of the ‘native’ and the ‘immigrant’, and how helpful are these in understanding teacher-student relationships?

"We" for Prensky is us digital immigrants. "They" refer to our children, those who were born into a world where the Internet and cellphones are part of everyday life. He persuades me, the reader, using the argument of technological autonomy..."progress" is irreversible. Adapt or be left behind. There is some truth, of course, to what he says. My children will not experience the world that I experienced. But then...that can be said of any parent, regardless of when they were born. I think it's useful to the point that I, a digital "immigrant," can start to see things from my children's perspective and learn how to see as they see...even if "through a glass, darkly." For example, I don't have to be so opposed and totally against games. That is what excites my child. It interests him. That kind of structure can be (and actually already is) a platform for learning.

Wesch's The Machine is Us/Using Us gave me chills. But then, the question was asked: What is being left out of the story of the internet here, and from what position is this story being constructed?

I am reminded that there are many, many perspectives. Anything can be a "machine": my body, my automatic responses. So, I shouldn't be afraid of a collective Internet "machine." After all, it is a human artifact, it is made up of not only the technology itself, nor the users, it is made up of our collective being. We cannot predict where exactly it will take us but it assures us that there is diversity of thinking behind it. I think we can all profit from this diversity.

Which brings me to my most important insight from this first week: my need to value a polyvalent way of thinking when it comes to eLearning, technology and digital culture. It is highly complex and requires rigorous and expanded thinking. I hope to pass on this kind of learning to my kids.

I am very excited by everything that I've learned so far from this EDC class. And I look forward to the next weeks!