NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... indeed, a mythology about childhood. On the one hand, children are seen to possess a natural, spontaneous creativity, which is somehow released by the machine; while on the other, children are seen as vulnerable, innocent and in need of protection. Ultimately, both positions are symptomatic of the chronic sentimentality with which our society views children - of the very limited and limiting ways in which we construct the meaning of childhood, and thereby constrain the lives of children.
At the same time, both positions are characterized by a kind of technological determinism - that is, a belief that technology will bring about social changes in and of itself'. Whether we see these changes as good or bad, they are seen to follow inexorably from the implementation or availability of the technology. Thus, technology is frequently held to transform our social relationships, to alter our mental functioning, to change our basic conceptions of knowledge and culture - and, crucially in this context, to transform what it means to be a child, and what it means to learn. This argument is determinist in the sense that technology is seen to emerge from nowhere, or at least from a neutral process of scientific research and development, rather than from the interplay of complex social, economic and political forces - forces which play a crucial role in deciding which technologies are developed and marketed in the first place.
From this perspective, technology is seen to have effects irrespective of the ways in which it is used, and of the social contexts and processes into which it enters. Much of this debate about childrens uses of new communications technologies has been conducted over the heads of children themselves. We still know very little about how children perceive, interpret and use these new media. As in the case of television, most of the research has been preoccupied with the search for evidence of negative effects, and much of it has been based on implicitly behaviorist assumptions.
There has been very little attention to the social contexts in which the technology is used, or to the social relationships of which it forms a part. Children are typically seen here as isolated individuals, who are powerless to resist the negative influences Yet the meaning and use of technology are clearly mediated by social relationships. For example, we need to analyze how technology enters into the peer group and the family, how people get access to it, how they learn about it, and how its use is regulated and controlled (for instance by parents). Certain combinations of technology and social relationships bring about particular uses, but they also prevent others. In the process, technology comes to be defined as (for example) male or female, educational or entertaining, in ways which systematically favor access among particular social groups. As with television, people use the technology to construct social relationships and to define their social identities - although the resources which are available to them mean that they do not have infinite choice in how they do this.
It is immediately apparent that computer games are the focus of an elaborate peer group culture. Contrary to much of the public concern which has surrounded it, games playing is very much a social process. While the actual playing of games is sometimes an individual, isolated activity, it is also often collaborative, a focus of a great deal of talk and interaction. Furthermore, the culture surrounding the games is also a means of establishing and sustaining interpersonal relationships - from the swapping of games, cheats and hints that took place in the playground or in tutor periods, through to the more public culture of games shops, arcades, magazines and TV shows. At the same time, this social process is one which is essentially mediated by consumerism, by the operations of the market. Much of the discussion is about what you can buy, what you have bought, or what you are going to buy - and this is a discussion in which we are not Middle-class children tend to have greater access to technology than working-class children, as well as having newer and more powerful equipment.
Also, boys are generally more interested and involved in this area than girls. Ultimately, I would want to resist any reduction of the phenomena I have been describing to a label like information technology. This is not simply a matter of information. It is about entertainment, art and culture; it is about literacy and communication. We urgently need to extend our definitions of these things if we are to develop adequate responses to the challenges of Equally, these phenomena are not simply a matter of technology. We need to see digital media in the context of the convergence of previously distinct media and cultural forms; and in terms of wider economic, social and political forces.
Despite their newness, these technologies force us to go on asking some very traditional questions about access, about control, and about We need to move beyond the idea that technology has consequences in and of itself. There may indeed be great creative, educational and democratic potential here; but whether that potential is realized depends upon how the technology is used, and on the social relationships that are constructed around it. We need to think creatively about new forms of educational practice, and new forms of community, which can make this happen. Children clearly need help in this respect. Technology in itself will not make them creative, nor will it motivate or enable them to learn. Children need to develop specific skills both in using software and hardware, and in more traditional areas of literacy and artistic expression, if the potential is to be realized.
We need to abandon the idea that these new and old forms of literacy are mutually exclusive alternatives; or that the new literacies are simply routes towards the old. Parents and teachers also need help here. We need to assist parents in supporting their childrens use of computers, and to develop the fairly limited work that is currently being undertaken in most schools. As in the case of print literacy, we need to develop forms of dialogue and collaboration between home and school. The notion that we can simply wire children up to the information superhighway and expect them to learn is a drastic oversimplification of the Perhaps most crucially, we need to ensure that the use of technology is a collaborative, social process, rather than a privatized, individualized one.
We need to construct new kinds of public spheres in which children can work collaboratively, share what they produce, and communicate with a wider audience. In my view, schools will be key institutions in this process. The notion that these technologies will make schools and teachers effectively redundant - that the Internet will be the school of the future - is little more than dangerous nonsense. Schools have the potential to give equal access, not just to technology but to the skills and competencies that are needed to use it creatively and effectively. If they cannot do so, it is likely that the creative, educational and communicative benefits of these technologies will only be realized by a small elite - and that elite, like other elites, will be primarily male and middle-class. If the potential of these technologies is to be realized by all young people, schools may well have a significant role Bibliography:
Free research essays on topics related to: political forces, social relationships, middle class, peer group, social process
Research essay sample on Social Relationships Political Forces
