Is there a potential problem being stored up for people if 'education' is tailored to fit into their cultural and personal preferences?
I believe so. See my post here about education stretching a person: http://kayrodge.blogspot.com/2009/03/week-9-q3.html
If education were tailored for each individual, then a very limited amount of ‘stretching’ would go on. Without being stretched beyond preferences, I’m not really sure how much education would actually be possible. To give an example, when I was in the younger years of secondary school, I hated English and much preferred maths and science. Had I been given the choice to do just these, or less of English based subjects then I would have taken it. However, by the time I came to choose my A-level options, I really disliked sciences and favoured the humanities. Having been given the choice of a tailored education, my options in later life could have been severely limited.
Psychologists like Bordieu (Zevenbergen) also make well established claim that general learning and development is a result of new information being struggled with a fit into either new or pre-existing schema. With tailored learning to ‘suit’ the individual, not only would the learning of specific content be limited, but genera; development itself may be stunted as a result of minimised struggle.
Finally, only learning a limited amount of subjects may have ethical implications. Only learning preferred topics may limit knowledge of the world outside of what directly affects the individual.
If this question, however, is talking about ‘tailoring’ in terms of learning methods rather than the actual contents of education, I cannot see as many problems.Although this may be limiting because it may mean that neo-luddites etc can put effort into being educated in their desired ways, or techophiles in theirs, it is unlikely that a balanced variety of skills will be gained despite making education accessible for more; the outcome will be less useful than if a wider variety of skills were taught. Again, this comes back to stretching and ideas of learning through struggle.
Zevenbergen, R (2007) “ Digital Natives come to Preschool: implications for early childhood practise” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8 (1) http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=ciec&vol=8&issue=1&year=2007&article=3_Zevenbergen_CIEC_8_1_web [accessed 17/03/09] (this wont link as you have to enter a passcode)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

I think there is possibly a BIG problem with tailored delivery -as I tried to hint on the righthand of the page opposite the questions. Viz:
ReplyDelete"Notions: 4) This relates to question 4). Does education have a role in relation to 'work culture'? Whose culture is that?
Or the educated culture of the 'wise'? Whose culture is that?
What might cultural inertia mean in this context?"
At any one time, the culture of the powerful is not the culture of youth. Bankers got young people to do their digital gambling for them (whilst not understanding/caring what was actually going on beneath their apparent profits). But the old bankers made most money and continued in power.
If you can't talk the talk of the powerful, you better be able to sweep them aside -and that is very difficult! And here I mean "talk" metaphorically -like Prensky uses "accent". If you need to do well and can't create a revolution, you need to be flexible -because you've been stretched formally as well as in other ways?
What do you make of that?