A conflict of paradigms

As we lead into our final round of discussions for the team I'd like to throw you something to muse and comment on...

[image:elron6900]

Proposition:
That technology is purely a distraction where contemporary ways of living and being and learning in a socially networked world, are at loggerheads with the economic rationalist, industry driven VET agenda. Emerging technologies can now carry the blame because increasingly they support the new paradigm rather than perpetuating the old, but by focusing on them rather than on what is really at stake we are setting teachers up for conflict, tension and burnout.

Consider these two extracts:

From Ros Brennan (2003)

A large number of teachers are not only struggling with the demands of rapidly
changing technologies, but also with an often unfriendly teaching context that is pre-determined by institutional structures and management practices, course content, material presentation and the nature of the platform that their institution is tied to. It is a credit to teacher/trainer professionalism and dogged persistence that online delivery works as well as it does.
Online pedagogy is frequently characterised as ‘constructivist’. However the reality of delivery matches very poorly against the assumptions that underpin this particular view of teaching and learning, which are that individuals ‘construct’ new knowledge as they integrate new experiences and modify existing patterns. The teaching and learning process needs to acknowledge that students develop their own styles and preferences for learning using a variety of different resources.

Online pedagogy in VET needs to be able to create teaching and learning environments where students have the opportunity to:
* reduce their reliance on text
* explore and value their intellectual, social and cultural backgrounds
* develop their knowledge beyond the transmission and assessment of content
* reflect on their own learning
* be part of an inclusive learning environment
* communicate extensively with their peers and their teachers
* become self-regulated and engaged with their own learning
* develop a group identity that connects them with their learning and with the broader social environment.

and from Mike Brown (2000)

The turning over of the selection and determination of knowledge to employers, managerial prerogative and the market also constitutes a major weakness. The major objection is that it subordinates the interests of the worker/learners to the interests of employers. This can be considered contrary to the longer term and broader interests of many of the learners. In this light VET can become a form of entrapment rather than empowerment. The strengths and power of VET can evaporate and simultaneously become weaknesses. This allows a critique that suggests that VET programs are narrowly focused, instrumental, technicist, corporate, undemocratic and hegemonic. So what happens when working people want a real education and not one that keeps them dumb? Who do they turn to, educators? . . . or themselves?

In contrast then, it is hoped that a more general and inclusive notion of ‘work-related learning’ could spark the process where working people can engage with the issues, themes and debates and learn about work, workplace dynamics, political economy, and how these impact upon society. It might be possible for work-related learning to become a space to analyse work and consider the role and function of work in our lives and our society; a space to develop visions of alternative arrangements and possibilities and a space to work out how the best of these visions can become reality. How might this occur? Who would be involved?

and...
What new and emerging technologies support is the creation of an environment in which learners ideas and opinions are the central focus and which challenges students to become 'critically conscious citizens with political agency and choices.' (Webb, 107)

Are teachers today attempting to straddle two agendas and paradigms? If they do, how?
Will VET learners demand a shift of focus or are they products of the Romantic humanist vocationalised educational systems of the past?