I was skimming through the 21st century skills report found at enGauge and when I got to the "Creativity" section I was drawn back to my last posting on Richard's blog and also to a point made in Laptops and Literacy by Mark Warschauer. (I know here it is again, but it's like the 1:1 laptop bible!)
A symbolic analyst is actually a term coined by former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich (1991) who believes that the "jobs that drive our knowledge economy and provide people with power, prestige and high pay are almost all considerd symbolic analyst services."(Reich as cited in Warschauer 2006). Symbolic analysts "solve, identify, and broker problems by manipulating symbols. They simplify reality into abstract images that can be rearranged, juggled, experimented with, communicated to other specialists, and then, eventually, transformed back into reality." (Reich as cited in Warschauer, 2006). In addtion, they "use digital technology on a constant basis...are highly adaptive...and must constantly reinvent themselves."
"Our knowledge-based age has shifted power from those who own raw physical materials to those who have intellectual capacity—the capacity to create and produce knowledge." (21st century skills). This comes from the creativity section in the 21st century skills report. There will be some who will say well, all of the students are not going to be symbolic analysts, or, all of our students are not going to go to college. Does that mean we shouldn't give them the chance? Do we tag those students who have no "symbol manipulating" potential and relegate them to a tenure of poster making (and I've assigned posters before..so I'm not saying anything about the value of posters...just trying to make a point) and let the others run with the technology? No, everyone can benefit from this. But, as teachers we need to step up to the plate and make the technology integration meaningful. To accomplish this, the powers that be need to make the professional development most teachers need to get up to speed meaningful.
I think it was Richard who mentioned in his blog the need for a pedagogical shift in order to make technology integration work in our favor. We want our kids to have the skills necessary to be "creative" and to apply that creativity in a digital world. Don't most teachers "simplify reality into abstract images that can be rearranged, juggled, experimented with, communicated to other specialists, and then, eventually, transformed back into reality"? As a symbolic analyst I'd like more of the "power, prestige and high pay"!:)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Okay maybe my reading comprehension skills are off today, but I can't seem to make heads or tails out of the whole "symbolic analysts" spiel. I guess I must not be one because the definition is too abstract for me to understand.
I'd like to respond to one comment, as this -- like many things in my head -- is something that I've felt ambivalent about for some time. While I agree that we should give students options and not pigeon-hole them at all (society will take care of that), does there come a point where we, as teachers, must realize that what may be potential futures for those who are naturally, intellectually gifted may not be potential futures for everybody? There are students I have who won't succeed in college. And that's okay.
As with most progress, there are great potential rewards. My fear is that we will set unreasonably high expectations for students who will not be capable of reaching them, and they will suffer inextricable mental and emotional damage. It's not PC in education to say that less intelligent students don't have the potential to succeed in certain areas that more intelligent students do. But it's reality, and the sooner we get the message out that it's okay to be a garbage man, or a mailman, or a manager at Jiffy Lube if that's your maximum potential, the sooner we will all be able to live more amicably with each other rather than looking down on certain people and certain positions.
If what Reich says is true, then we need to prepare accordingly the students who are able (and have a desire) to learn these skills. However, it doesn't mean that everyone can, will, or should.
Richard-
I agree that not all students will fall into the future "symbolic analyst" category and that goals should be set appropriately. My point was more that there's no reason all students can't be at least exposed to the technologies that will help prepare them for "21st century skills" and then modify from there. I think there are too many kids who are automatically shuffled away from these technologies, when in fact, it may be just the "hook" they need to find their niche. I've had too many students come back to me and say, "I wish I had taken course x, it would have really helped me". Now, some of that may have been their own teenage apathy at work, but many of them were probably steered in a different direction because of their "ability."
Ann
Post a Comment