The debate in class over computational literacy was one I really enjoyed, primarily because it represented the various views that the field has over what constitutes as necessary skills for students. One key assumption in the debate however, and the course to a certain extent, is the fact that these technologies/computers are here to stay and that we have to reckon with them.
When reading the diSessa article, I was curiously uneasy with this assumption. The article provided a broad overview and had its theoretical merits, but to a certain extent, it felt like colonization all over again. I'm not denying the benefits of technology, but the image of the torch of technology as a beacon of light that will illuminate the uncultivated, less advanced corners of the globe is unshakeable and disturbing. To this end, everyone must arm themselves with the necessary knowledge, less they be left behind. I'm left wondering why this trajectory seems to be the most viable one. Can other societies survive without a full computational revolution? Will they be relegated into peripheries and be considered "non-progressive" if they do not adopt these new technologies? Perhaps the world is getting increasingly flat as Friedman argues. However, to what extent are all societies participating? And are they participating as full members? Or are they the savages that need to be educated in order to be on the "modern progressive track"?
No comments:
Post a Comment