In searching for a theoretical framework that can shed light on the direction of my project, I was pointed in the direction of “instrumentalism.” I found this article, “Technology Artifacts, Instrumentalism, and the Humanist Manifestos Toward an Integrated Humanistic Profile for Technical Communication” (Knievel, 2006, p. 65). Knievel covers a lot of territory in his article, outlining the difference between the humanities and humanism. The humanities are academic disciplines and humanism is a philosophy that employs human reasoning. Humanism informs the humanities but they are different, says Knievel. He also speaks to technology, as it was initially employed in education and how its since grown. Knievel speaks to the historical view that humanities and technology were considered opposing ideologies. By the 1970’s, technical communication was becoming a respected area, and universities recognized that students needed to be trained in writing. As the article defines technology tools such as the pencil, pen and paper, the different definitions of technology has changed drastically and continues to evolve.
Reimagining
A colleague and I recently shared our thoughts on teaching English during this monumental shift of Ai use. I had a few laughs as I shared, “and we thought ‘Grammarly’ was bad.” In our classrooms, we are (all) struggling with students using Ai tools, when we’ve asked them not to. We want them to develop their understanding of how to write without the tool. My colleague shared, “All of us are undergoing a paradigm shift especially the humanities and reimagining what are our classrooms look like.” We struggle with the paradox of not wanting our students to “cheat” and use it, with the understanding that they will need literacy in digital form, too. How do we balance these two?
Knievel shares various perspectives on technology through his article, including one that suggests technology must remain outside the human values and can, “actively and insidiously portending its ruin (Brantlinger, 2000; Noble, 1997; Postman, 1992)” (Knievel, 2006, p. 77). In our summer course, we were encouraged to approach opposing ideologies in culture as less of an “either/or” and more of an “and.” Perhaps we can recognize the differences in technology and the humanities, specifically the study of English in our classrooms, and also recognize that technology is not going anywhere. We may consider them part of a permanent, shared culture. “Looking outside the traditional parameters of English studies can help us construct a humanistic ethos for technical communication that better articulates technical communication’s relationship to technology and makes a case not for “spanning” the distance between the cultures of technology and literature and the humanities, respectively, but rather for integrating them” (Knievel, 2006, p. 67).
Another friend shared his analogy of Ai with me last year. He asked, “If you had to chop down a tree, would you use an ax or a chainsaw?” The obvious answer is… “A chainsaw!” Well, of course you would. It’s faster, easier, and much more efficient. But. What if the chainsaw breaks down? Well, then you would need to know how to use the ax. I since then use this analogy with my students. It is our job to teach you how to use BOTH; to teach the comprehension of texts, the pulling out their own ideas, and to share those thoughts in a cohesive, concise and clear way. I want them to know how to use Modern Language Association to cite their evidence and understand that using someone else’s ideas needs to be recognized as work that isn’t their own. I also want them to see the masterful abilities of Ai and prepare them for jobs that will utilize these technologies. It’s a balance.
“In this view, technology becomes the embodiment of an ideology whose most cherished tenet is the advancement of human interests. Rather than being separate from humanist ideology, then, technology is central to it.“
(Knievel, 2006, p. 75)
I don’t believe that educators or the public comprehends the enormity of change that is coming our way in education and the workforce due to Ai and automation. I see a wave of change coming and I want to prepare my students for their future. With any historical change, it’s important to visit the past. I found Knievel’s visit to various theories and perspectives, enriching and also hopeful. Currently, my colleagues rightfully express both hesitancy and interest in these rapid changes to technology. I also feel that polarity in my pedagogy and look to recognize the potential of Ai integration into my classroom with a critical, but hopeful, lens. Knieval suggests that technology cannot exist without humanism, and I would continue this in saying that the humanities can no longer exist without technology. Our English classrooms must adapt to the integration of technology or we will be left behind.
“We would no longer need to rationalize or apologize for our allegiances to the computer, to industry, and to the corporate world. Instead, we would open these arenas for analysis, recognizing them and the values they indicate as ways in which humans have chosen and continue to choose to map their existence. We can proceed then to look at technologies as manifestations and conditioners of values. We can, within English studies, encourage balanced, pragmatic critique with an honest, nonpolemical review of the desirable consequences that emerge from technology rather than participate only in ideologically charged deconstruction that yields no consequential change. Finally, we can participate in developing new humanists who see an integrated world, who combine a critical vision of technology with hope.”
(Knievel, 2006, p. 83)
References:
Knievel, M. (2006). Technology Artifacts, Instrumentalism, and the Humanist Manifestos: Toward an Integrated Humanistic Profile for Technical Communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 20(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651905281040
Leave a Reply