“There is no guarantee that the investment will necessarily be in forms of communication that are most appropriate for the majority of people” (Lister et al., 2009, p170)
The core readings this week acted as a catalyst for me to revisit topics and sources from this course, my teacher training and my corporate life before teaching (BT).
In the year 9BT, I worked for a multinational alcoholic drinks company and a major part of our strategy was to offer free training to licensed premises (using our products). In 6BT, I joined a multinational food company that provided consumers with recipe ideas, again using the firm’s products. I never thought too deeply about this kind of sponsored content advertising at the time – our customers were adults and we were one of the choices they had.
Since entering the teaching profession, I’ve regularly undertaken PD provided by suppliers of services, including a number that are providing digital solutions. I’ve always accepted this as part and parcel of life – we choose to use their product and training is a desirable part of the purchase. Even if I wouldn’t have chosen that product, someone in my organisation has so I make the most of the situation.
What has evolved in my thinking this week, however, is the culture from which this emanates. I contrasted the products marketed to schools to those I see in my other job in the Army. Firms fawn over defence contracts and tailor products because of the money involved – our society is prepared to invest because it values the security. Many of the solutions I see in education are either cheap and nasty, or just rebadged versions of what businesses buy, such as the Microsoft Office suite – not necessarily appropriate for students (Lister et al., 2009). The way our society (Australian and probably western in general) values education leads to this being tolerated. Even though I believe Couch et al. (2018) from Apple are sincere in their desire to transform education, the fact remains that Couch’s views have formed from his corporate origins. A lot of my research has been looking at the wording that these firms use when extolling their education solutions – from a capitalist perspective.
I’ve long felt that the school system has not kept up with innovation in the rest of society – see Tweet on Education 3.0 to 4.0. I can see that a lot of the use of digital technologies in schools relates more to Web 1.0: providing artefacts; not being emancipatory; lack of broader influences (Knox, 2015). What has evolved in me this week is that, while before I saw this simply as schools not providing as much commercial opportunity, I now believe that it’s a much deeper societal attitude that has lead to this occurring.
Couch, J. D. & Towne, J. (2018) Rewiring Education: How Technology Can Unlock Every Student’s Potential. Dallas, Texas: BenBella Books.
Knox, J. (2015) Critical education and digital cultures, in Peter, M. (ed), Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory, Springer, 1-6
Lister, M., Dovey, J., Giddings, S., Grant, I. & Kelly, K. (2009) New media: a critical introduction. London: Routledge.