I hate to just summarize the chapter as if any of you need me to make it more simple before you can understand. So, instead I would rather just point out of few of Papert’s comments that have stuck with me. I think when he refers to the word ‘megachange’ we automatically assume that this change will be huge and immediate. I don’t think anything huge or immediate has happened in education. The biggest changes have come in terms of technology. I think this is only because our culture is becoming saturated with digital innovations. Educators have performed their jobs under the same age-old assumptions about how students learn. Megachange will only come when these new digital innovations are used more frequently and effectively.
Papert refers to a Knowledge Machine. I think our Knowledge Machine is the Internet. The Internet gives us that ‘extended immediacy’ he talks about. We have access to any piece of information about any topic we can think of. We have this knowledge machine in our homes and in our schools, except at school the very people in charge of education put a limit on how much knowledge students can gain from this knowledge machine. Ironic huh?
Papert suggests that with extensive use of a ‘knowledge machine’ the need for students to know how to read might become unnecessary. Now, we still live in a society where illiteracy is a big problem. I believe that people can still make it through life without the ability to be fluent readers and writers. Will they be more or less successful based on their ability to read? We may never know. Papert uses the word ‘letterate’ to refer to the ability to read written letters and suggests that true literacy comes with a change in how we think about something based on our experiences. But, students gain a lot of knowledge from expository texts that might otherwise be impossible to ‘experience’. So, without this letteracy how will students acquire this kind of knowledge? But, then I have to think about my own four-year old son. At this point in his life he is still ‘illetterate’. He has recently become interested in video games, the old stuff Nintendo64. Now, I sit and watch him play and he already knows how to play the games, what the goal of the game is, and how to win. All of this without the ability to read. Granted some of the games are narrated but most are not. What exactly gave him the ability to work his way through these games, and will this knowledge benefit him later in life? Will they make him a better problem solver, will they give him more patience when faced with adversity, or will they only serve as distractions later in life? I have said countless times in the last few semesters that I truly believe that learning comes with experiencing the new knowledge and making connections to it. I just don’t know how this is accomplished with every subject and every piece of content.
I was inspired by the first chapter and equally disappointed. The new information sounds promising but still impossible to accomplish. With time there is hope. Maybe before our tenure is up, we will be able to experience such ‘megachange’ in education. Let’s hope.
