Post here for questions and comments on:
16:15 – 16:30 | Farewell | Elizabeth Hutchinson, School Library Specialist
—
Link to YouTube recording.
—
Darryl concluded with the following remarks:
“What an extraordinary and humbling day in the presence of such aspirational and inspirational colleagues using technology to share so freely – a powerful example of the augmentation of human intellect.* This [hard work of engaging and empowering inquirers] is the revolution that will not be televised because it does not sell, but is the revolution that our children most need us to bring about.
I have no doubt that there is a wealth of equally aspirational and inspirational work being done by colleagues that we were not able to share today. So, while it is too early to begin planning the next Symposium, it is definitely not too soon to start dreaming.
Thank you, may you be blessed in your revolutionary intent and activity, and I look forward to our next gathering.”
—
*By augmentation of the human intellect, Doug Engelbart meant:
“… increasing the capability of a [person] to approach a complex problem situation, to gain comprehension to suit [their] particular needs, and to derive solutions to problems. Increased capability in this respect is taken to mean a mixture of the following: more-rapid comprehension, better comprehension, the possibility of gaining a useful degree of comprehension in a situation that previously was too complex, speedier solutions, better solutions, and the possibility of finding solutions to problems that before seemed insoluble. … We do not speak of isolated clever tricks that help in particular situations. We refer to a way of life in an integrated domain where hunches, cut-and-try, intangibles, and the human ‘feel for a situation’ usefully co-exist with powerful concepts, streamlined terminology and notation, sophisticated methods, and high-powered electronic aids. … Augmenting [human] intellect, in the sense defined above, would warrant full pursuit by an enlightened society if there could be shown a reasonable approach and some plausible benefits.”
It seems to me that “the complexity and urgency of the problems [facing us continue to increase] much faster than our combined capabilities for understanding and coping with them,” and that at some point this must become a critical problem. It also seems to me that this is in some part, perhaps a large part, due to a failure of school to educate towards “more-rapid comprehension, better comprehension, the possibility of gaining a useful degree of comprehension in a situation that previously was too complex, speedier solutions, better solutions, and the possibility of finding solutions to problems that before seemed insoluble.” At the same time, our “high-powered electronic aids” evolve ever faster, and this has resulted in the technological means for augmenting our intellect outpacing the development of our individual and collective intellect, and becoming an end in itself.
Although he may not have had this precisely in mind, Postman [and Weingartner are] right in saying that “of all the ‘survival strategies’ education has to offer, none is more potent … than the ‘inquiry environment'” (1971, p. 36), provided that we resist the tendencies that rob the inquiry environment of its potency (which we intend to address at the IASL 2023 Annual Conference in Rome – see Recovering the Educational Promise of Inquiry for presentation). This is because inquiry has engaged and empowered inquirers as its end, which includes the thoughtful use of rapidly-evolving “high-powered electronic aids” to augment our individual and collective intellect.
From ChatGPT et al (24/03/2023!) in the FOSIL Group Forum.
Does school educate for this?
.
