Freire, Illich, Dewey — On Today’s Ed Technology

Surfing the web this morning, I stumbled on an abstract for Richard Kahn and Douglas Kellner’s article, “Paulo Freire and Ivan Illich: technology, politics and the reconstruction of education” (Policy Futures in Education, 5.4, 2007: 431-448). You really don’t need to try very hard to imagine my frustration when I wasn’t able to access the full article without a paid subscription to the journal. Googling the article title, however, led me to a PDF version, graciously posted by Kahn. This openness, for which I’m very grateful, is in keeping with the tenor of the article.

Although published only last year, it seems oddly dated, barely touching on the social networking aspects of the web. Considering the pace of change and the pace of journal publications, however, this time lag is not surprising. Perhaps the value of this article is in the historical light that it sheds on the new technology, specifically from the perspectives of three of the most influential modern educational philosophers: Paulo Freire, Ivan Illich, and John Dewey. The excerpts below reveal the social, political, and economic values that should be included in pedagogical systems that are democratic and global, that are ultimately inclusive rather than exclusive, humane rather than entrepreneurial.

Here are some excerpts from Kahn and Kellner’s closing discussion:

“It appears certain that technology will drive the current reconstruction of education, but we should make sure that it works to enhance democracy and empower people, and not just corporations and a privileged techno-elite” (440).

“In discussing new technologies and multiple literacies, then, we must constantly raise the following questions: Whose interests are emergent technologies and pedagogies serving? Are they helping all social groups and individuals? Who is being excluded and why?” (441).

“[The development of] new pedagogies and modes of learning for new information and multimedia environments . . . . should involve a democratization and reconstruction of education such as was envisaged by Dewey, Freire and Illich, in which education is seen as a dialogical, democraticizing and experimental practice” (442).

“Peer-to-peer communication among young people is thus often a highly sophisticated development, and democratic pedagogies should build upon and enhance these resources and practices” (442).

“One of the challenges of contemporary education is to overcome the separation between students’ experiences, subjectivities and interests rooted in the new multimedia technoculture and the classroom situations grounded in print culture, traditional learning methods and disciplines . . . . Today, the disengagement on the part of students is . . . strikingly evidenced in the contrast between an interactive and multimedia technoculture and the traditional forms of authoritarian lecturing and problematical print materials (such as outdated textbooks). Thus, a ‘generational divide’ is suggested that may be as meaningful as its digital counterpart. The disconnect and divides can be addressed, however, by more actively and collaboratively bringing students into interactive classrooms, or learning situations, in which they are able to transmit their skills and knowledges to fellow students and teachers alike” (442).

“Whereas modern mass education has tended to see life in a linear fashion based on print models, and has developed pedagogies which have divided experience into discrete moments and behavioral bits, critical pedagogies produce skills that enable individuals to better navigate and synthesize the multiple realms and challenges of contemporary life” (442).

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Skirting around the Issue
• Don’t Set Your Wit Against a Child
• Review of “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”