electro-textual

It seems that, back in the 1980’s, English teachers in Australian schools were the most fiercely resistant of all, to the encroachment of technologies for learning.

i was fascinated to learn there was a whole history of resistance, based around viewing computers as part of the de-humanising, mechanistic collapse of caring society. As “The Machine” gradually takes control of our post-industrial world, human values are eroded, and the world of “1984″ is invited to overpower us all.

(In this case, resistance does make sense! i’m getting the urge to turn off my machine right now.)

Cal Durrant traced the history of English teachers’ relationship with technology, back to the Eighties, and highlighted a significant conference which eventually led to some change in the field. The ‘82 AATE (Aust. Assoc. f th Teaching o Eng.) Conference.

One Gerry Tickell (Pres. Au. Tr. Fed.) stood up and declared that rapid social and technological changes “don’t just happen”, they are “caused, deliberately, to serve someone’s purpose(s)”.

In whose interests? was his follow-up question.

Technological changes “serve the interests of the most powerful and damage the interests of everyone else“. Technology removes (the lowliest) jobs, and in doing so widens the gap between rich and poor.

Tickell roused the English teachers, who “must resist pressures to narrow the curriculum into so-called instrumental skills“. Because technology was seen as dehumanising, most teachers received this enthusiastically.

Instrumentalism, or Active Dialogue?

Contrarily, Brian Carss (UQ Prof) suggested that computers can enable active dialogue for learning (vs the “inert book“). Many teachers were ruffled by this suggestion, and would have stampeded if politeness allowed.

Later on, a conference reviewer (Paul Brock), weighed up his responses