While I found the subject matter being covered in Sidler’s article interesting, I don’t know if I share her belief that our current study of the human genome is going to drastically change the way that we teach and understand composition in the near future. I think that, as a result of the larger scope of technological advances currently taking place in all sectors, there will be marked changes in composition, but I don’t know if they will be the result of a single area of research. The studies that Sidler mentions will cause changes, but these changes will be gradual and will occur in tandem with other advance. I don’t think that we can clearly separate the effects of one advancement over another. I will take a moment to discuss some of the points that Sidler makes in her article.
Our students’ environments will be changing. I can’t imagine that anyone involved in education would argue with the fact that the world is different than it was even ten years ago. The world is much faster than it was when I was in high school. Nearly all of my students have cell phones. They walk around with iPods permanently attached to their ears. Their primary form of communication is text messaging. Not only is the world changing to a faster format of communication, but these changes are coming faster and faster. The jump from email to instant messaging took several years. People were “slow” to make a transition from a relatively stable form of communicating, one that at least offered a chance for revision and reflection, to amore instantaneous one. This provided an easier jump to an even faster and more convenient form of communication. As the technology improves, people are more willing to jump to the newest trend in communication. Our students are going to be among those who make the jump first. We have to be aware of the changes and be ready to adapt to them as well. We can no longer sit back and wait for a form of communication to develop. Our students’ environments are changing so rapidly, that, if we wait, they will have already moved on to a new technology before we even start to consider learning it.
One aspect of Sidler’s discussion that unsettled me was her look at how our students’ bodies will be changing as a result of research in genetics. There is already a rift between the “haves” and the “have nots.” This gap is going to increase exponentially if we reach at point at which wealthy parents can afford to make their children smarter from birth. I cannot even begin to comprehend how a teacher can successfully manage a classroom in which some of the children are bred to be smarter than others. How can we create a system that meets the needs of all children if are creating children with an obvious biological advantage? Would we need new classes for the genetically enhanced? Would we need entire advanced programs for these students? Would we need new schools for these students? Would we ignore the obvious correlations this has to the past?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I too think that Sidler went a little over the edge with her predictions that biotechnology will alter composition. Composition will change, that goes without question, but I think if she is going to herald the change coming from just the biotechnical world, she should have better support. The part that struck me as the most interesting aspect of the piece is what you conclude your post about: what will genetically altered students do to schools and the social order of our world. The example that immediately popped into my head was the film Gattaca. The division that Silder alludes to is made concrete in this context. The entire social makeup of the world, from the schools to job possibilities, is divided between the enhanced and the non-enhanced. I am always concerned for my students’ futures, but the part that is alluded to in your response that troubles me is: “What will happen to the teachers?” Will we have to be enhanced to keep our jobs? And if so, what will happen to those classrooms that are left out?
ReplyDeleteI'm worried about teachers, but I am truly concerned about the students who don't have the means or the status to become enhanced. A quick survey of history shows that brilliance seems to have no obvious genetic aspect, and is not confined to any social class. Brilliance and artistry crop up in a seemingly-random pattern throughout humanity. The lucky individuals are born into the means to develop their talent into something amazing. Who knows the greatness theat has died a quiet death in the third world?
ReplyDeleteI believe that Cathy is correct in her assertion that, historically, it is not only the "haves" who have shown to be gifted, and it would be a crime if biotechnology and the genetic enhancement of intelligence and "talent" somehow hid from us those with natural gifts.
ReplyDeleteSidler seems to want to privilege for the field of composition a technology that is, as Nicolas points out, belongs to multiple areas of study.
It seems to me that the most important understanding that this new research can give to us as teachers is, hopefully, a more clear idea of how our students learn so that we can find more and better ways to teach them ALL.