The social meaning of an object can be lost, taken out of context or taken in a new context. This places teachers in a position of enormous personal, ethical responsibility today. Objects often refer to their own history in an effort to validate new versions, and teaching is no exception when attitudes favour a more technological approach to practices.

We shape our tools towards what we are being actively persuaded to be better practice and in turn those tools shape us and students. Its easy to get lost in a cycle of cultural reproduction based on little more than media rhetoric and forget to ask for evidence.

It is, to me at least, crucial to be aware that many objects are manipulated “producers” who seek only to further their own profits and notability through this process. If they really made a difference, they would produce evidence, not more media.Attempting to shape children through the use of brandification and social reproduction is immoral, but increasingly done the name of professional development. What bullshit. These producers are developing revenue, not new theories of learning.

I would be interested to read any study which shows otherwise. As a parent, I refuse to let my children participate in the Google classroom or any other brand derived environment … as subscribing to that ideal is ignorant of what childhood is and how children learn best.

About these ads