For the last three years I’ve reflected on the year through what I have learnt researching and reading qualitative research. Each year I have organised the blog post by responding to a list of questions that were posed to Carolyn Ellis, Norman Denzin, Yvonna Lincoln, Janice Morse, Ronald Pelias, and Laurel Richardson. In 2015 I … Continue reading Writing and thinking about qualitative research: 2017 reflection
Recently I was involved in Edtech Talkfest where Erica Southgate, Rachel Buchanen from the University of Newcastle (UoN), Australia and I invited researchers and teachers to contribute to a festival of talking about the good stuff, the barriers to, and the worries about the implementation of educational technologies in schools. Held at UoN's NeW Space … Continue reading Bounded systems: Affordances and breakouts
This morning I woke up to an alert on Twitter. Benjamin Doxtdator (you should read his blogs, they are excellent) had found and shared a blog a wrote over a year ago where I was thinking/musing about the similarities between Silicon Valley and imperialism. It was a nice reminder that I have been thinking in this paradigm for a while now and has given me the confidence to lay some analysis down rather than simply think into the bloggosphere.
In this blog I would like to start exploring the idea of educational technology within a justice framework. When I say justice I mean social justice but usually when social is there as a prefix people can get caught up in what has essentially become pop social justice, which is problematic. I am using the conceptualisation of justice considered by its theorists. John Rawls’ Theory of Justice is usually…
View original post 1,007 more words
- It is not possible or economically, environmentally sustainable to generate enough data to process a value judgement about contextualised quality teaching. It’s easier to standardise education to generate data which shows quality.
- A “what works” agenda makes it easier to program pedagogy onto a computer.
- Standardised national curriculum makes it easier to program tasks onto a computer.
- Standardised testing makes it easier to program grading onto a computer.
- Computers are cheaper than teachers.
- Artificial intelligence is not going to take teacher’s jobs, human’s are – computer programmers.
- Computer programmers are not educated in understanding the social context of students.
- Computer programmers are often employed by private transnational companies (platforms) so if schooling is automated it is also most likely privatised.
- Platforms bank their money in tax havens, valorise the casualisation of the workforce, and are not easily regulated by governments.
- Tax havens mean governments are being squeezed in their ability…
View original post 189 more words
In the most general sense of creative and inventive thought, innovation has always aimed at liberating us from destruction. Yet this technologically progressive world is hurtling us closer and closer to oblivion. We are disenchanted by myths and fanciful illusions yet imagine the science fiction of full automation. We have subjected everything natural to close microscopic scrutiny seeking how to regain mastery of a world radiating disaster.
On the one hand, innovation furnishes us with the conditions for greater justice; on the other, those who administer the technical apparatus are afforded disproportionate superiority to the rest of the population. Each individual is devalued, reduced to millions of on online gestures; mined, fracked, drilled, data sold as fuel for the transnational magnates. We as individuals are disappearing before the technical future, reduced to our multiple parts designed for the multiple medias. Nevertheless these systems have provided for us as never before.
View original post 336 more words