The Horizon Report - a skeptical view

Hmmm, the Horizon Report. Surprise, surprise the report's publication "was made possible through a grant from the Microsoft Corporation." Well at least they're upfront about it, but the wee red flag is waving "vested interest, vested interest." So with a slightly skeptical view lets have a look at the Executive Summary...

A glossary would be good. "K-12"? Is this a later generation of Doctor Who's robotic dog K9? A wee web search (see I can use these things, though I'm told three Google searches consumes the same amount of power as boiling one cup of water!) reveals it stands for Kindergarten through Year 12.

Okay, so the Horizon Report looks at the Horizon Project which "centers (sic) on the applications of emerging technologies to teaching, learning, research, and creative expression." Sounds good. And also which technologies are likely to be adopted into the mainstream of schools in the next year, the next two to three years and the next four or five years.

A laugh out loud moment. In comparing grade schools with post secondary the report mentions a barrier (for grade schools) of "many students do not bring laptops to school." Which begs the question, how many do? I do not see any packed in with the textbooks and sweaty gym gear at CBHS. Maybe they're sneaking them in under the radar.

And then "younger students are, at present, less likely than college-age students to carry mobile devices, especially Internet-capable ones." Come on, what six year old needs a mobile device? What school child needs a mobile device? Nice to have, but essential? Nope. Sorry, but I've been crammed in a matatu (East African van sized bus for carrying up to thirty people) with Masai men living a third world lifestyle, dressed in traditional garb, yet sporting cellphones. It's laughable. Technology for technology's sake, or more likely to feed the growing consumerist view.

And as if a trifecta had come storming home we're given this classic: "Smart object appliances aimed at consumers..." Aimed at? Like some sort of weapon? As if we're the target of the corporates hunting us for our dollars. And consumers? Yes, we are merely consumers of the products and services aimed at us. Post World War Two the United States had the largest manufacturing base the world had ever seen, and partly driven by fear of another recession, they set about the ugly drive for consuming. It became a public duty to replace old and buy new. Products were designed not to last but to have a limited lifespan so they had to be replaced. And now we see in a report on the use of technologies in education - a fundamental right - the phrase "appliances aimed at consumers". When will we stop? When will Gaia's will to accommodate us end?

On the positive side the report does acknowledge the difficulty of assessment - though some would argue, and I'd agree, that assessment driven teaching and learning methods have the cart before the horse - and the "need for new tools for filtering that do a better job of keeping objectionable content out of the way". I couldn't agree more with the latter part. As I've blogged before, what are the dangers? what are the ethics? is the technology appropriate?

But am I all doom and gloom in regards to technology? Not at all. As I say, things need to be appropriate. Take collaborative environments and online communication tools, both of which are
current/emerging technologies in use in K-12 education. They're powerful tools and ones that students can and will use, they expand the horizons (is this a coincidence?) of the classroom and allow students to be globally connected. With balance - by which I mean ensuring students stay locally connected with real, not virtual, friendships and interactions - they can be a great aid to teaching and learning.

Other stuff like mobile devices, cloud computing, the smart objects that are aimed at consumers, and personal webs will emerge. Industry and corporations will place them before us like idols to be adored and they'll force their way into schools. Yes, they will be able to be used effectively in education and yes, they'll accelerate the pace of change in society and education, but when will the bigger questions be asked? Is the classroom, where students are corralled, the best place for them to learn? Is a dualistic curriculum that drives separation into subjects and then within subjects into topics and so on into finer and finer pieces, then attempts to tie them together or contrive real-world contexts a sound way to learn? What of holistic living and learning? Is some of this technology like the Concorde - nice to have but not sustainable and ultimately not necessary?