6
The following quotes from Frankenstein, attributed to Dr. Frankenstein himself as he contemplates his future endeavors, expresses the continuum of learning cited by Ekoko, and underscores Frankenstein’s own relentless drive for learning and “outside the box” thinking:
“So much has been done, exclaimed the soul of Frankenstein–more, far more, will I achieve; treading in the steps already marked, I will pioneer a new way, explore unknown powers, and unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creation.” (Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, 3.14)
“In other studies, you go as far as others have gone before you, and there is nothing more to know; but in a scientific pursuit there is continual food for discovery and wonder.” (Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, 4.2)
Victor Frankenstein is setting his own agenda for his own learning. He has gone as far as others have led him, not he strikes out on his own. In the next section, I will discuss what our classrooms may become when humans are allowed to progress on the continuum of learning that may bring about the next phase of human evolution.
Ekoko’s continuum of learning is further illustrated and underscore the following quotes made by Victor Frankenstein regarding his relentless drive for discovery using “outside the box” thinking:
“So much has been done, exclaimed the soul of Frankenstein–more, far more, will I achieve; treading in the steps already marked, I will pioneer a new way, explore unknown powers, and unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creation.”
“In other studies, you go as far as others have gone before you, and there is nothing more to know; but in a scientific pursuit there is continual food for discovery and wonder.”
The Continuum of Learning can represented by the following chart, created by Marc Rosenberg. Basically, a student will progress through various stages of development, or learning, before acquiring mastery of a particular task, or in a specific content area. The end result is the learner having a greater, or even exclusive, determination of what and how they will learn in the future. The ultimate objective therefore is to learn beyond what is known already and create new knowledge.
Like Victor Frankenstein, students should have a hand in setting their own agenda for learning. Students will go as far as instructors can lead them, thus prompting new discoveries on their own. Though the ultimate result of Frankenstein’s quest was complete failure, it can be argued that the failure was the result of human frailty; the technological advances Frankenstein achieved however were, in fact, successful. Based upon this premise, students should be allowed to direct their own learning to a greater extent, and not fear the end result may be different than what had been initially planned.
Students also need to be taught how to use data they collect to make intelligent predictions on outcomes of learning. Makri et al (2014), in their studies, found that serendipity, or the unintended discovery of information or achieving some unforeseen positive result, would not likely happen if instruction and learning mechanisms were totally planned and implemented. There needs to be an unpredictable element implanted in the learning process.
As Shelley’s novel produced profound fear and hatred of The Monster and what it represented socially, teachers often express much of the same loathing to new technologies in classrooms. What is profound is the expression of unbelief in regard to trans-humanism and the thought of humans integrating with machines. It is an understandable position; however, as science fiction shows us, what may seem outrageously impossible today could very well be our reality in the not too distant future.
Consider the following as an encouragement to break through the predetermined limitations of antiquated pedagogies:
“We will transcend all of the limitations of our biology,” and “That is what it means to be man— to extend who we are.” (Kurzweil 2006). Also, in The Historiography of Culture, Sterne (2006) describes advertisers who view digital technologies as commodities rather than “forces that will transform it [life].” This viewpoint should prompt educators to re-evaluate digital technologies in the classroom, and whether those technologies transform the classroom or are just “commodities” to be used as educational tools. Educators should help students see beyond themselves and the classroom environment. Technology, while used as “tools” for learning, need to be presented as the means to achieve greater ends for students. In other words, technology should be integrated into the lives of students and used with purpose on the continuum as Ekoko describes. In order to do this, students and teachers both need to be aware that technology is to be a part of daily lives beyond the finite boundaries of the classroom.
In A Cyborg Manifesto, Haraway (2007) states, “we are all chimeras, theorized and fabricated hybrids of machines and organisms” (p. 35). Haraway uses the cyborg as the metaphor for the blurring of boundaries between man and machine. This could well be the classroom of the future as students not only use hand-held AI but eventually use biotechnology, integrating both human and machine traits into the learning cycle.
Steve Mizrach, from Florida International University, writes in regard to cybernetic technology, “For the first time, through electronic technology, human biology is no longer destiny. Through bionic prostheses, bio-implants, and bio-chips, electronic technology can be integrated into the human organism.” (Mizrach 2004). Mizrach goes on to explain mechanical prosthetics have been made available to humans ever since the American Civil War. In recent years these previously purely mechanical devices now interface with human neural networks. Mizrach further explains that the advancement of biotechnology has changed basic assumptions of what it means to be human. He writes, “Most people assume that they have attributes machines do not (free will, emotions, a soul) but will these beliefs hold up as electronic technology becomes ‘hardwired’ into human organisms?” (Mizrach 2004). We already see the immersion of AI into schools by way of smartphones, hand-held computers, VR and so forth. Mizrach uses the argument of Owen Paepke who stated, “. . . the human race may have reached the saturation point for economic growth, but this is fortunate since it has arrived in time for it to work on ‘human growth,’ i.e. the re-engineering of the human species.” (Paepke 1993). Mizrach goes on the make an interesting statement that “We [humans] can ‘graduate’ from being victims of natural selection to masters of self-selection.”
In regard to practical uses of technology, Verbeek (2013) and Foucault (1997a) believe humans should focus not necessarily on the ethics of having technology but rather on how the technology is constructed and applied. Verbeek (2013) also asserts humans should be “involved in the design and implementation of the technologies that govern, or steer, our lives”. An “outside” stance toward technology therefore, could be interpreted as opposing technology rather than a “limited attitude” where technology is observed in it application from the edges of that technology but still within its sphere of influence. Braidotti (2013) quotes Verbeek by stating,” . . . technologies contribute actively to how humans do ethics” (Verbeek 2011). This statement seems to support the theories of Foucault and Verbeek that humans should be active participants in the gathering, analyzing, and application of data from the technologies we use.
Further, Verbeek states, “While we cannot conceive of ourselves as autonomous beings anymore, because of the fundamentally mediated character of our lives, we can still develop a free relation to these mediations. Without being able to undo or ignore all of them, we can critically and creatively take up with them. Being a citizen in a technological society requires a form of ‘technological literacy’. Not in the sense that every citizen needs to understand all technical details of the devices around them, but in the sense that we develop a critical awareness of what technologies do in society” (Verbeek 2013). In educational institutions, instructors should not be afraid to use the technologies students already know how to use.
In An Introduction to Multicultural Education, Banks (2002) believes it is necessary to consider how communication methods used by students on a day-to-day basis may be incorporated by teachers into lesson plans and assessments (Banks 2002). In an expansion of Banks’ reasoning, Hicks (2008) delineated the difference between the future of education and futures in education. The future of education refers to the infrastructure of our institutions and how they may be operated. The latter speaks to the content of what is taught. Dahlin (2012) believes the study of natural sciences, specifically the nature of being human, should be a cornerstone of transhumanist studies in higher education programs. This coincides with Haraway’s position that cyborgs are a melding of man and machine.
In Education, Transhumanism and Eugenics in Science Fiction Works of Huxley, Asimov, and Niccol, Spasic (2015) warns of “the dangers which may come if we do not take a careful leap into a technocratic future” (Spasic 2015). The warning is based upon what Spasic describes as a “gap” between human beings if we are not careful. He believes we are already too reliant on machinery, and the reliance of parents on the teaching of their children by others is not a strange occurrence (Spasic 2015). He uses the science fiction works of Huxley (A Brave New World), Asimov (The Naked Sun) and Niccol (GATTACA) as a basis for his article. These works describe societies that have moved into transhumanistic realities based upon the over-reliance on machines. A key feature in each story is eugenics, i.e. the education or indoctrination of individuals to accept the position society has relegated them to. Education therefore is viewed in these works as a “means of social control”. There is however, little in the way of choice, i.e. individuals may not choose who or what they will become, but have been programmed to take a pre-determined place in society.
Asimov, as quoted in Goble’s book, Asimov Analyzed, defined of the purpose of science fiction by stating in part, “…it [science fiction] presents results to the view of the public, a public that needs more and more to have the possibilities of change pointed out to it before it is disastrously overwhelmed by it” (Spasic 2015; Asimov as quoted in Goble 1972, p. 32). This contradicts the works of not only himself but of Huxley and Niccol. Asimov implies the public should be aware of the negative and positive implications of the immersion of science into society and vice versa. This was the failure of Dr. Frankenstein who looked only to elevating himself to the position of Creator, and failed to consider that his own human limitations would render his creation imperfect.
Frankenstein did not expand his work into the unknown using knowledge and technology that was forbidden or taboo. It was his application of those technologies and the ignoring of social consequences that foiled him. Similarly, students today should use the technology that is, and will become, available. It is their application of those technologies that will help them achieve their self-directed instructional objectives. Teachers must play an integral part by providing guidance and understanding into the consequences and possible outcomes of the learning process.
ACTIVITY: Answer the questions:
- Should technology drive our curriculum or should curriculum drive technology?
- Do teaching methods retard or enhance a student’s ability to go beyond what is already known?
- How may schools control the use of embedded biotechnology where students have direct access to information?