Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By Alec Couros
EC&I 925
April 10, 2002
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
EPISTEMOLOGY AND CURRICULUM THEORY:..................................................1
KNOWLEDGE ASSUMPTIONS AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT.............3
THEORETICAL VIEWS OF KNOWLEDGE...............................................................4
RATIONALISM......................................................................................................................4
EMPIRICISM.........................................................................................................................5
EXISTENTIALISM...................................................................................................................6
POSTMODERNISM..................................................................................................................7
CURRICULUM THEORY: BOUNDARIES OF TRADITIONAL SCHOOL
KNOWLEDGE..................................................................................................................9
CURRICULUM AS SYLLABUS (BODY OF KNOWLEDGE TO BE TRANSMITTED)...................................10
CURRICULUM AS PROCESS...................................................................................................11
CURRICULUM AS PRODUCT...................................................................................................12
THE FALL OF SCHOOL KNOWLEDGE......................................................................................16
THE RISE OF DIGITAL EPISTEMOLOGIES..........................................................17
THE CHANGING STATE OF KNOWLEDGE................................................................................19
THE KNOWER IN THE DIGITAL AGE......................................................................................22
RECONCILIATION AND REDIRECTION................................................................28
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................30
APPENDIX A...................................................................................................................35
ii
Introduction
This paper explores the concept of knowledge within two frameworks. First, the
explored. With this, I seek to better understand the assembly of school knowledge within
educational thought and focus on both the advantages and limitations of this traditional
17). Such forms of knowledge can be identified as an emerging subset of what has been
explored, I will begin to establish the relationship between these two classifications of
knowledge and determine whether or not they are mutually exclusive or in fact
reconcilable.
"What is knowledge?" and "What can we know?" If we think we can know something,
as nearly everyone does, then a third key question arises: "How do we know what we do
know?" Most of what has been written in epistemology over the ages addresses at least
one of these three questions. For example, in the Theaetetus, Plato considers the thesis
that knowledge is true belief that can be backed up with an account or explanation. Thus,
in early epistemological thought, Plato was concerned not only with the question of what
knowledge is, but also in determining what qualities make up truth and how the
possession of truth can be proven. Later, rationalists like Descartes and empiricists like
Hume carried on the traditions of epistemology and defended competing theses about
how we know, and have also disagreed about what we can know.
sociologists and curriculum theorists have taken on the problems within the domain of
epistemology. Of the three initial questions posed, the latter two are the most frequently
recognized and contemplated in modern curriculum theory. For instance, the question
“what can we know?” has been reframed by critical theorists such as Peter McLaren,
Henry Giroux and Michael Apple to “whose knowledge should be taught?” For this
question to emerge, it is clear that such theorists emphasize the social and political
fundamental level, theorists have begun to look closely at the role of knowledge in
Early sociologists such as Emile Durkheim saw education as a “social thing” and
However, in the early 1970's, sociologists in the field of education began to shift their
concentration toward a thorough examination of the content of education rather than the
the earlier efforts of sociologists had been directed toward schools as social structures in
which the curriculum was often taken-for-granted. There was an obvious and almost total
neglect of how knowledge was selected for curricular inclusion (Reynolds & Sullivan,
1980). In Knowledge and Control, Young (1971) argues that education is "a selection
and organization from the available knowledge at a particular time which involves
conscious or unconscious choices" (p. 24). He later adds "school curriculum becomes
just one of the mechanisms through which knowledge is socially distributed" (p. 27).
deciding upon what knowledge is to be included in the learning process and how this
knowledge is to be learned (it is understood that replacing the word ‘learned’ with
transmitted, delivered, facilitated, etc. helps to shape the explicit processes involved). If
we accept, as most still do, that curriculum development must begin with statements
about the objectives which we hope to attain or the principles upon which our practice is
to be based, all decisions upon content must be subsidiary to those prior choices. Or as
Tyler (1949) asks the question, “What educational experiences can be provided that are
In the subsequent sections, it should be apparent that there are several ways of
One of the most significant, and also one of the most dangerous, fallacies
with which the curriculum debate has been, and continues, to be beset,
derives from the failure to recognize the problematic nature of human
knowledge and the consequent assumption that it is possible to identify
non-problematic elements which must form the core of curriculum without
further debate. (p. 25)
Kelly (1999) alludes to the problematic nature of human knowledge and the
consequent fact that there are different ways of conceiving it. What follows is a brief
exploration into the most commonly held (Western) views of human knowledge. Here,
explored briefly.
Rationalism
The rationalist view touts the supremacy of the intellect over other human
faculties. In this view, it is stressed that true knowledge can be achieved by the mind and
knowledge remains independent and exists separately from the often contradictory
and exists apriori in the human intellect. Theorists such as Plato, Descartes, Kant and
Hegel have expanded upon rationalist epistemologies and have shared the basic
conviction that the evidence achieved by our senses is misleading but that the rational
unaffected by those humans who possess it. Knowledge is timeless, objective “and in no
curriculum theorists who subscribe to the objectives approach. The idea that knowledge
is universal, unchanging and exists “out there” to attain, is an attractive feature in the
truths to be pursued. The latter point rationalizes education as the pursuit of knowledge
and truth. In this context, for R.S. Peters (1966), the ideal teacher:
Empiricism
nature of rationalism” (Kelly, 1999, p. 28). John Locke is often thought to be the founder
of the empiricist movement. He believed that the human mind starts as a clean sheet, or
tabula rasa. Thus, all of the knowledge that is acquired in a lifetime is acquired through
While in this view, all information is seen to be gathered through sensory experience,
empiricists would agree with the rationalists on the premise that the senses can not
always be fully trusted. Knowledge construction in this view becomes a much more
personal experience; yet whether or not knowledge itself becomes personal and
subjective in this view is debatable. For instance, Dewey believed that the proper model
In Dewey’s view, human knowledge is seen as evolving and learned through experience,
Existentialism
passionately disagree with one another on many basic philosophical issues, what they
shared was a respect for individualism. In particular, they argued that traditional
approaches to philosophy did not adequately respect the unique concerns of the
precedes essence" (p. 215), means that there exists no universal, innate human nature. We
are born and exist, and then we ourselves freely determine our essence (i.e., our
innermost nature). Not all existentialist philosophers have accepted the "existence
existentialism rejects the existence of any source of objective, authoritative truth about
metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Instead, individuals are responsible for
‘ugly’” (Boyles, 1997, p. 262). In this paradigm, there exists no universal form of human
nature; each individual has the free will to develop as she feels fit.
In the existentialist classroom, subject matter takes second place to helping the
complete responsibility for their thoughts, feelings and actions. The teacher's role is to
help students define their own essence by exposing them to various paths they may take
in life and creating an environment in which they may freely choose their own preferred
way of learning. Since feeling is not divorced from reason in decision-making, the
existentialist demands the education of the whole person, not just the mind. Morris
(1966) writes, “The existentialist attitude toward knowledge radically affects the teaching
of those subjects which are dependent upon systems of thoughts or frames of references:
it states that school subjects are only tools for the realization of subjectivity” (p. 123).
Postmodernism
“The word 'postmodernism' has very little content of its own. It is a sign; a pointer in
reference to other concepts, like the word 'north'” (Riddell, 1998, p. 101). If we are to
claims to be the successor. Modernity is equated with the scientific worldview of the
seeing the world is clear, as it has come to dominate modern academia and our present
social, economic and moral structures. In the modern world, human reason, as
exemplified in the deductive thought of mathematics and physics, has come to replace the
superstitious worldviews of religion and other once more revered forms of irrationality.
truth. What we call truth is simply a commonly held societal belief. Such beliefs are
rejection of all “totalizing theories” (Boyne & Rattansi, 1990, p. 12), and “incredulity
toward metanarratives” (Lyotard, 1984, p. xxiv). The modern worldview moves from
stability and certainty, to a complex, often chaotic, postmodern vision of the future.
postmodernism brings additional weight to what has been proposed by sociologists and
philosophers for the latter half of the 20th century; that power and knowledge are
relationship.
Curriculum Theory: Boundaries of Traditional School Knowledge
Aristotle’s categorization of knowledge into three separate disciplines: the theoretical, the
productive and the practical. In reflection of this framework, curriculum theory has been
As is evident (furthermore in Table 1), there is little deviation from Aristotle’s original
construction.
sections.
Curriculum as Syllabus (body of knowledge to be transmitted)
however this idea is still most common in higher education. By definition, a syllabus is a
concise statement or table of the heads of a discourse, the contents of a treatise or the
transmit the knowledge associated with these points to the students in the classroom.
A syllabus will not generally indicate the relative importance of its topics or the
order in which they are to be studied. In some cases as Curzon (1985) points out, those
who compile a syllabus tend to follow the traditional textbook approach of an “order of
or unconsciously - the shape of a university course in which they may have participated
(p. 37). Thus an approach to curriculum theory and practice that focuses on syllabus is
and/or subjects. Education in this sense is the process by which this knowledge is
transmitted or delivered to students by the most effective methods that can be devised
(Blenkin, 1992).
Those who subscribe to the syllabus approach are likely to limit their planning to
a consideration of the content or the body of knowledge that they wish to transmit. Also,
it is because of this particular view of curriculum that Kelly (1999) claims, “primary
teachers have regarded issues of curriculum as of no concern to them, since they have not
regarded their task as being to transmit bodies of knowledge in this manner” (p. 7).
Curriculum as Process
content or knowledge to be learner, but emphasizes the role of the learner and concerns
itself with the development of the learner as a human thinker. This approach claims its
ancestry from contributing thinkers such as Rousseau, Froebel, Montessori and Dewey
and also more recent figures such as Piaget, Vgotsky, Eisner and Bruner. These figures
the principles inherent within the “aims of education” and the implementation of each of
these principles in each moment of practice. These overall aims do not yield short-term
objectives (as does the objectives approach) rather they epitomize principles that are
purposes, intentions or aims, however it is freeing in the sense that it removes the
moves away from the notion that there is only one step-by-step, predetermined route to
their achievement.
The more sophisticated theoretical criticisms of the model are reduced to the normative
assumptions and the value systems embedded in this approach. While in the objectives
approach, the choice of what knowledge to be studied is clearly laden with predetermined
societal values, this can also be said of the processes decided upon within the process
method. This approach is caught in a philosophical bind that can only be circumvented
by avoidance: the avoidance of the fundamental dilemma of positing what a good human
Horowitz (1986) writes, “the approach creates a classroom situation that bears little
resemblance to which student work will eventually be exercised” (p. 144) meaning both
the academic and “real” world. In essence, Horowitz feels that the process
context, that is, the realities of the academic world. In effect, the process operates within
a sociocultural vacuum.
Curriculum as Product
transmitted. Ted Aoki (1988) would agree with Kelly and views the traditional
ethos. It can be argued that the origins of these efforts were to make schooling more
just that. Here, Bobitt argues that one must be able to rationally justify the curriculum and
the planning of one’s teaching. In order to do this the aims and objectives of the
curriculum should be clear and concise. Outcomes that cannot be described in a clear and
coherent manner should not be pursued. As an example, Bobitt proceeds to describe “life
Bobbit then proceeds to divide each of the goals into more specific objectives. For
instance, the category “interhuman relations” is divided into 821 goals that yet again can
be subdivided. Bobbit explicitly breaks down the desired and teachable goals for
schooling and emphasizes that “nothing should be done by the schools that can be
sufficiently well accomplished through the normal processes of living” (p. 35). In this
education and its key thinkers which include Pavlov and Watson. Such behaviourists
believed that human behaviour is determined by rules that govern our interaction with the
environment and through this thought, advocated a deterministic and reductionist world
for education is that of acquiring specific skills. A student acquires skills at fundamental
levels and then builds on those skills to reach more complex levels of achievement. A
move from base level skills to more sophisticated skills. Drill and practice and frequent
Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Here, Tyler expands the notion of curriculum
simply as objectives and identifies four key elements in curriculum planning: purposes,
content, procedures and methodology. In the spirit of this expansion, Tyler formulates
four key questions, which are now commonly referred to as the “Tyler Rationale”. These
questions include:
Although Tyler began looking beyond objectives themselves, the theorist met with harsh
resistance on the narrowness of his approach. Aoki (1988) describes this approach as a
such a curricular approach as “Linear programming and teaching by objectives” (p. 43).
From his point of view this approach provides a route from entry point to completion
point, where the route is broken down into a series of small steps. This, according to
Stenhouse, involves little critical thinking on the part of the learner and restricted
The emphasis on objectives and aims within this model of curriculum gave rise to
further study into analysis of educational objectives. One influential theorist in this regard
the intended outcomes of the educational processes. “What we are classifying is the
intended behaviour of students, the ways in which individuals are to act, think or feel as
the result of the participating in some unit of instruction (Bloom in Stenhouse, 1975, p.
100). The above claims leave little doubt of the behaviourist origin and influence on
Blooms’ taxonomy. Bloom continued to take the taxonomy approach further and had
The deterministic nature of the objectives model of curriculum has raised the
approach serves to integrate children into the current social order. It does not provide
learners with the knowledge, attitudes and skills to deal critically and creatively with the
reality in order to improve it. (Grant & Zeichner in Fien, 1993, p. 15). In other words we
are educating for the mastery of already available cultural tools and skills and not making
The “objectives model” of curriculum is located within what Kemmis, Cole and
Suggett (1983) term the vocational/neo-classical orientation to education (p. 71). This
orientation has been described as “an education which accepts technocratic and
managerial values and insofar as it uncritically accepts existing social structures and
hierarchies, may perpetuate elitism, injustice, class and gender inequalities” (Fien, 1993,
p. 19).
Although Young (1970) alludes to the other “mechanisms” for the distribution of
knowledge, it is unlikely that he, or any other theorists in the 1970’s, could have fully
predicted the role and breadth of non-school knowledge that has begun to emerge in the
late 1990’s (e.g., the Internet). However, Bernstein (1971) was one theorist who began to
realize the importance of recognizing other non-school forms of knowledge and looking
The respective role of formal education within greater society has changed in
many ways in the three decades since Bernstein wrote these words. Perhaps, one of the
most significant changes to occur is the perception that contemporary educational
institutions no longer hold the monopoly over knowledge and learning. It is no longer
accurate to regard learning being limited to occur within the constraints of the traditional
classroom and under the supervision of a teacher. Learning has necessarily become an
element in the everyday life of individuals and the formal protocols traditionally
Yet the push for what we have come to know as “life-long learning” does not
always reflect what educational theorists would regard as supporting the ideals of liberal
education (Hirst, 1965). Life long learning is touted in a dualistic breath as it promotes
the development of active citizenship while placing emphasis on the capacity of being
employed in a dynamic market economy. Although we live in the “digital age”, schools
today continue to operate within an educational model that takes its origin from industrial
“Tell me,” one might say, “what it is I am educating and what sort of a
world we live in, and I will tell you what I am aiming at.” (Garforth, 1962,
p. 15)
that it will act as a change agent, steering curriculum and learning into bold new
directions. In School’s Out, Perlman (1992) claims that technology will close the door on
our ideas of traditional schooling and render obsolete our contemporary notions of
teacher, student and the learning process. One needs to look as far as to the familiar
language of technological determinism. In this, I suggest that such theorists concur that
initiate and promote wide-ranging cultural and societal change. Marshall McLuhan,
known as a technological determinist, claimed, “we shape our tools and they in turn
Rose (2000) writes of the “IT Dream” that suggests that information technology is
a “primary source of the images and aspirations which inform discourse and practice in
all walks of life today” (p. 16). Rose suggest that the “IT Dream” helps to shape our
images of society as stories are told in terms of vast networks connected by digital
devices and fibre optic cables. “When we tell stories about our society’s future, they are
often told in terms of what human beings will become by means of technology” (p. 34).
dialogue in terms of what we know to be true (in regards to the information age and
“knowledge” becomes available in bits (i.e., digitized forms) rather than in atoms (e.g.,
physical things, books). He points out that information communicated in the form of
customs officials, liable to fines by librarians, destructive to trees and other living things,
and too often inaccessible as a result of being lost, misplaced, stolen, borrowed* or out-
of-print. On the other hand, information provided in bits quickly travel the Internet; go
smoothly across international borders; may facilitate interaction between producers and
manipulated; and translates into many different shapes and media (e.g., text, audio,
graphics, video). Negroponte’s primary focus is on the form of digital media. As the
form breaks from the physical and finite, the potential for flexibility, portability and
*
Note: I claim strong agreement with Negroponte’s point regarding “inaccessibility” as I waited more than
a week to borrow Being Digital as it was recalled from the library.
Ulmer (1999) moves beyond Negroponte’s notions to suggest that society is
moving into the age of “electracy”: a neologism that indicates a practice in electronic
media that is equivalent to print literacy. "In the history of human culture," Ulmer
suggests, "there are but three apparatuses: orality, literacy, and now electracy. We live in
the moment of the emergence of electracy, comparable to the two principal moments of
literacy (The Greece of Plato, and the Europe of Galileo)” (p. xii). For Ulmer (1999), this
shift means a heightened emphasis on digital and especially visual forms of knowing, and
verbal and visual modes of representation in popular media forms. For instance, he notes
newspaper headlines that draw out latent metaphors in its subject. Such examples
include, “Turbulent times ahead for United Airlines” or “Mercedes slips earnings gears”
(p. 259). Further demonstrations of this “struggle” are common in magazines such as PC
text, ask a question of the reader. In many cases, the answer comes in a form of a visual
image. Bolter (1996) suggests that the relationship between textual knowledge and visual
260). Such advertisements move beyond the explicit wit and use of metaphors, and
compel the reader to see that the future is visual, if not digital. In today’s world, “a pixel
more apparent. Compare, for example, a traditional print edition of MacBeth as opposed
to the Voyager Company’s (1994) CD-ROM version of the play. While there are several
examples of print editions of Shakespearean plays that feature elaborate illustrations,
books clearly focus on the text, or the written word, of the play. Traditional teaching
approaches also reflect this notion that the text itself is of greatest importance. On the
other hand, the CD-ROM version is designed to help students’ understandings of the
interviews with directors, literary commentaries and so on. While the CD-ROM begins
with the text itself as a starting point, the relationship between the written form and the
image becomes somewhat ambivalent as the multimedia devices soon take precedence
Perhaps the most compelling argument regarding knowledge in the digital age has
less to do with the composition (atoms versus bits) or preferred mode (textual versus
visual) of consumption, but more to do with the status of knowledge itself. Lyotard
(1984) believes that only one type of knowledge will be important in the postindustrial
world; that which can be translated into computational quantities and available in digital
forms. Anything that does not fit this particular format will be abandoned as legitimate
loses its use value and becomes an exchange value alone (p. 2).
pragmatic in their view of knowledge. The students’ classical question, “is it true?” is
criteria like true/false, just/unjust get displaced by competences according to the criterion
education in late modern society. However, the adoption of such technologies (e.g.,
Internet, World Wide Web) that connect citizens to seemingly limitless information
sources also creates uncertainties and challenges regarding the role of schools in society.
It is clear that the rapid proliferation of information technologies has created an open
learning environment within the everyday life-world and as a result, schools and
universities no longer have a monopoly over knowledge and learning. At the very least,
the role of knowledge dissemination seems up for grabs. A recent advertisement for a
The Humber Business School reads, “You’ve been to University, now it’s time to get
practical”. While the argument for a more practical university experience is quite old, as
we continue to move through the digital age, the separation between the relevance of
widen.
Quite simply, when describing the attributes of the knower in the digital age, two
questions need to be discussed. As these questions are closely related, they will be
These questions do not divert from the basic questions of curriculum. Certainly the
second question is not radically different from, as quoted earlier, Tyler’s (1949) question,
“What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes”.
However, the big difference here is not in what we (as teachers or curriculum planners)
would like students to know and what experiences we need to provide them with to attain
such knowledge. Rather, this section is an exploration of what many “wired” students
already know and how they, through communicative practice, come to know in new
ways.
The following is a short excerpt from a chat room taken from a “Computers in
At the time of this dialogue, these students were in their final semester of a four-year
Todd: Did you download The Learning Equation software for our Math
presentation?
Joey: I think you can do it manually without the code. There is an embedded
function. Also, I have the webpage up and ready. We can get our WebQuest up
and linked today. Regan and Shelly had some trouble with the frames … one of
the links wouldn’t open up in a new window and the navigation was all messed up
… but I think they just dropped to the HTML source code and fixed it somehow
… one of the technicians knew how to do it.
Lynn: I did last week. Hey, make sure to save the data to the public directory or
we won’t have access to it from the cart machine … we learned that last time ...
the hard way. :-( Good thing Regan had the backup on a CD. :-)
Without a better understanding of the context and at least a general technical background,
this conversation might be quite confusing to most readers. However, familiarity with
the processes and concepts related to terms such as “HTML”, “backups”, “WebQuest”
and “coding” are becoming basic fair for teachers (and moreso for students). It is also
important to note that while the principal purpose of this discussion was to ensure
preparedness for a math lesson, there are distinct underlying dependencies on technology
that both help to facilitate this discussion and provide tools for the lesson itself.
While these pre-service teachers are in a later stage in regards to their formal
SchoolNet (2001) reports that 52% of eight year olds in Canada already have access to
personal email accounts. This number reaches 81% as children approach ten years old.
Other popular online activities for the majority of Canadian preteens include participating
in chatrooms, using instant messengers, downloading games and music and browsing the
Internet. Students at a very young age become sophisticated users of information and
arguably, become “knowers” in a way that the majority of adults rarely achieve. In
Well, I didn't know that, and I couldn't find it in what passed for the
game's manual either. How do you learn this game? You would have to
play it over and over again, test-clicking on just about every object that
shows up on the screen. That's pretty much what Mike and his friends
were doing. Each of the guys played the game constantly, and then
compared notes with everyone else. (p. 207)
In The Children’s Machine, Papert (1992) claims that society is entering “the age
of learning”, during which time “the competitive ability is the ability to learn” (p. 12).
learning and to create learning environments. However, Papert writes, this prophecy for
the future of learning faces one major obstacle: schools. Education, as Papert sees it
"remains largely committed to the educational philosophy of the late nineteenth and early
Tests, “segregation by age”, “teachers as technicians who mould passive minds”, and an
emphasis on reading as the "essential route to knowledge" (p. 237) are the prime
active process, in which people actively construct knowledge from their experiences in
the world. This component is obviously congruent with Piaget’s idea of constructivism.
However, Papert adds to this, the idea that people construct new knowledge with
products. They might be constructing sand castles, poems, or computer programs (Kafai,
1995). What's important is that they are actively engaged in creating something that is
distributed cognition (Salomon, 1994) and has theorized on what he calls “distributed
specifically on situations in which more than one person is involved in the design and
construction of activities” (p. 3). Resnick (and I would concur) sees great promise in the
distance, to construct and extend knowledge of the learning community. Projects framed
meaningful artefacts” (p. 4). It is clear that such ideas are inspired by Dewey (1933),
who saw the human mind as a meaning-making organ, relentlessly driven to make sense
of its world—an idea that predates today's notions of both constructivism and active
learning. When it breaks down, a very simple concept is advocated here; use a student’s
meaningful projects that achieve an educational end. In this case, simple is powerful.
Knowledge assembly is the ability to collect and evaluate both facts and opinion,
determine bias content and to construct personal knowledge. While the concept doesn’t
go much beyond the basic ideas of research and critical thinking, I would argue that the
context of both of these activities changes greatly in the digital age. As there are a variety
of information sources (e.g., Internet, chat rooms, newsgroups, mailing lists, online
journals, books, etc.), it becomes increasingly important to understand the authority and
reliability of each, extract what may be useful from each resource and then reintegrate
and synthesis the information that has been discovered. For instance, information
gathered from a chat room, while perhaps more persuasive, would by default be regarded
as less believable.
For some authors, there is a sense that ideas such as “knowledge assembly” are
becoming more and more difficult as we continue on in the digital age. “Data smog”, the
“information glut” (Shenk, 1997) and “information exasperation” (Willinsky, 1999) are
just a few of the phrases that are being used to describe the burden of the information age.
In the information-abundant world of the Internet and other searchable data sources, it is
becoming increasingly difficult for individuals to manage their own information needs
information gathering and assembly depend upon highly customized tools that require
skilful use to produce practical results. This assemblage of information requires the
cyberspace and interact with other programs, performing a range of tasks, including
finding answers to questions framed in natural languages or using Boolean (or other)
logic operators.
carry out extrasomatic information processing” (p. 39). Extrasomatic implies that some
processing of information occurs outside of our bodies and that we don’t have to rely on
books, images, videos and other media. While a book (in form) is simplistic, non-
lightweight, requires no electricity and admittedly, much easier on the eyes the glare of a
computer screen. However, beyond those pros and cons, the book demands limited
in digital forms, the questions emerges, “who will have access to knowledge in our
society?” We become dependent on not only the skills involved to access knowledge, but
also on the format of media (e.g., DVD, HTML) and infrastructure (e.g., networks,
*
While I contemplate this idea further, I realize how familiar this question must sound – and how it must
have also been relevant at the time of Gutenberg’s printing press.
Reconciliation and Redirection
From this exploration of school knowledge and the study of emerging digital
epistemologies, I have developed a few ideas that I feel are most important in
1) Knowledge is moving from the idea of the existence of universal truths to the
reality that knowledge is tentative. In a sense, this point may have less to do with digital
access and exposure to great amounts of information and forms of digital knowledge
certainly amplify notions of relative truth. In the digital age, anyone can be an author yet
objective approaches), this can cause problems and great uncertainty in the classroom as
to critical thinking in the digital context are necessary components to the curricular
structure. Perhaps even more relevant, this development casts doubt on the necessity or
2) Knowledge acquisition and learning are moving from a largely linear process
to a hypertextual reality. The objectives approach and to some extent, the process
architecture which brings non-linear media (e.g., CD, DVD, hypertext) to the forefront,
has greatly influenced learning as students become skilled at multitasking and become
easily bored with step-by-step approaches to learning. The powers of hypertext and non-
linear systems should be embraced and researched to exploit the potential for learning.
3) New methods of knowledge construction are becoming prevalent in education,
in the media and in students’ personal experience. Such ways of knowing, which
emphasis visual imagery and interactivity, are quickly displacing literal modes of
students form relationships with both knowledge and people in the digital age, on their
own. We can take what is learned here to accelerate our understandings of how students
digital age. Arguably, the most important role of the Internet is not to provide students
with access to information, but rather, to provide students with access to people; experts
who may know more (or less) about the subject in question than does the teacher.
Cooperative learning and the sharing and valuing of multiple perspectives are strategies
that are increasingly important. Online student relationships (via email, chat, instant
messengers, etc.) continue to thrive inside and outside of school and educators need to
both understand and integrate these relationships into the context of the classroom.
schooling. Knowledge and skills that were once taught only in schools become available
through other modes of contact. Students who have access to technology are learning
technical skills in a variety of settings (e.g., home, library, friends). This skill acquisition
should be recognized and viewed as relevant prerequisite learning which becomes a part
of a child’s inventory in the classroom setting. (Note: there are concerns of equity of
access attached to this statement that are very important, but unfortunately are not
Conclusion
The ideas presented here regarding school knowledge and digital epistemologies,
knowing and emerging practice. The understanding of both areas can be instrumental in
moving toward notions of school reform in the digital age. Schools to some, while still
central to societal growth, have been criticized for decades for their inability to adapt to
Whether by choice, or by force, this resistance will inevitably come to an end as schools
While some will view these inevitable changes as tragic, and others as a rich
opportunity, it is clear that there are great struggles that lay ahead. However, one idea is
ultimately clear for this researcher. We must be aware of the powers of technology to
persuade our views when we ask the question, “what elements of education do we wish to
preserve in the digital age.” While theorists from the many camps discussed in this paper
would arrive at several different places (and likely reframe the question as well), a solid
curriculum is constructed are valuable assets when it comes to wise and democratic
decisions.
References
Aoki, T. (1988). Toward a dialectic between the conceptual world and the lived world:
Transcending instrumentalism in curriculum orientation. In W. F. Pinar,
(Ed.). Contemporary curriculum discourses (pp. 24-57). Scottsdale: Gorsuch
Scarisbrick.
Bailey, L., & Lumley, M. (1997). Technology planning: A toolkit for administrators and
school board members. Retrieved 04, 01, 2002 from
http://netc.org/cdrom/toolkit/html/toolkit.htm
Barash, D. (2001). America's essence: What would Sartre say? The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 47(45), 3-10.
Bolter, J. (1996). Ekphrasis, virtual reality, and the future of writing. In G. Nunberg
(Ed.), The future of the book (pp. 243-280). Berkeley, Los Angeles: University
of California Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1993). The evolving self: A psychology for the new millennium.
New York: Harper Collins.
Derkheim, E. (1956). Education: It’s nature and it’s role. In F. Buisson (Ed.), Education:
New dictionary of pedagogy and primary education (pp. 9-21). Paris: Hachette.
Frein, M. (1998). Strange bedfellows: Critical curriculum theory and the analysis of
concepts in education. Philosophy of Education Yearbook 1998.
Horowitz, I. (1986). Process not product: Less than meets the eye. TESOL Quarterly, 20,
141-144.
Johnson, M. J., Schwab, R.L., Foa, L. (1999). Technology as a change agent for the
teaching process. Theory into Practice, 38(1), 24-31.
Kelly, A.V. (1999). The curriculum: Theory and practice (4th ed.). London: Paul
Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Kemmis, S., Cole, P., & Suggett, D. (1983). Orientations to curriculum. Orientations to
curriculum and transition: Towards the socially-critical school. Melbourne:
Victorian Institute of Secondary Education.
Lankshear, C., Peters, M. & Knobel, M. (2000). Information, knowledge and learning:
Some issues facing epistemology and education in the digital age. Journal of
Philosophy of Education, 34(1), 17-39.
Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2000). Why digital epistemologies. Re-open, 1(1), 1-20.
Noble, D. F. (1998). Digital diploma mills: The automation of higher education. First
Monday. Retrieved 04, 02, 2002 from
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_1/noble/
Papert, S. (1992). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer.
New York: Basic Books.
Perlman, L.J. (1992). School’s out: Hyperlearning the new technology, and the end of
education. New York: William Morrow.
Reynolds, D., & Sullivan, M. (1980). Towards a new socialist sociology of education. In
L. Barton, R. Meighan, & S. Walker (Eds.), Schooling,ideology and the
curriculum (pp.56-71). London: The Falmer Press.
Sartre, J. (1964). Sartre the words. New York: George Braziller, Inc.
Shenk, D. (1998). Data Smog : Surviving the Information Glut. San Francisco: Harper,
Taylor, J. C. (1998). Death of distance. The birth of the higher education economy.
International Council for Open and Distance Education. Retrieved 04, 02, 2002
from http://www.icde.org/AboutICDE/SCOP/Queensland-98/taylor.htm
Young, M.F.D. (Ed.). (1971). Knowledge and control: New directions for sociology and
education. London: Collier-MacMillan.
Appendix A
services to consumers.