I do not think Rheingold's application of evolutionary theory was accurate in which he stated that beings have survived and thrived only by the war of competition because he referenced intra-species competition (http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html).
Humans have always been interdependent upon one another. Additionally, evolutionary theory speaks of species surviving and thriving against other species. So the war in Evolution is not one spinach plant competing against another spinach plant, but rather a spinach plant warring and competing against some other plant that would steal its niche. So I do not agree with Rheingold's premise at all since he misstates and misapplies evolutionary theory.
Actually, the way that he speaks of evolution is silly because it was so misapplied. He ought to have used some other analogy. He speaks of "evolution speeding up" with the development of technologies such as printing presses. I have not seen any new species arising recently. I have not seen people developing changes in their biological structures (bodies), so I do not understand at all what he is talking about.
I think that he is speaking of a cultural development of humankind, not "evolution". Rheingold spoke that biology was changing to be more collaborative from the "level of the cell". That is an incredible statement so as to be silly. I think he is trying to make another point, that of the increased role of collaboration in our society today. That argument is fine. But his parallel to structural changes in cells is laughable.
Of course, a cell amends to accommodate forces applied to it, but a new cell has not developed. It isn't like instead of just, for example, nerve cells and muscle cells we now have nerve cells, muscle cells and the new amazing cell that has come on the scene. Rather, under pressure of application, a cell adjusts - such adjustment is the normal functioning of cells - not some new cell form or evolutionary being.
I found his parallel to be so odd and hard to follow that it was difficult to focus on the points he was making regarding social changes. But the point that there seems to be an innate need to collaborate, I agree with that point. There has always been a desire and a new for humans to work together, but the way that they work together lately is only different from they way that they used to work together before.
In the "old days" collaboration looked different. When women did not have the freedom and opportunities afforded to many women today, men and women would often collaborate to divide up the work of surviving. The men would often get game and defend the homestead from intruders, and women often stayed in the home and focused on attending more closely to the children, and conducting domestic tasks within the home. With barriers lifted, now collaboration develops in new ways, such as by technology.
Diziol and colleagues (2010), wrote an article describing technology aiding and promoting adaptive collaboration support. Their report is an example as to how, in today's society, collaboration is finding new outlets and avenues of expression.
Technology certainly does facilitate collaboration among learners, consistent with constructivist principles. Humans are dependent on one another and always have been dependent upon one another. In some ways, people are less dependent on one other than they used to be. Women now can live independently which was very difficult in the past. Women have reproductive freedom, do not have to catch their own game to eat, have legal standing in society. This allows women to be less dependent than they used to be before.
Diziol and colleagues (2010), wrote an article describing technology aiding and promoting adaptive collaboration support. Their report is an example as to how, in today's society, collaboration is finding new outlets and avenues of expression.
References
Diziol, D., Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. R. (2010). Using intelligent tutor technology to implement adaptive support for student collaboration.Educational Psychology Review, 22(1), 89-102.
Rheingold was a little difficult to follow, especially when he started talking about the cellular level. If he was trying to say that all of a body’s systems had to work together to keep a body alive, then that is as it was designed and each part was integral to the whole. The part about collaboration and how it was increased by the use of technology is easy to see. Anyone that has been in a computer lab with a group of students will quickly see one student help another. When the teacher allows such working together it can make the product of the group better than any one member could have done on their own. The old saying about ‘two heads being better than one’ is right. Teachers, when they collaborate on lessons or classes can often bring more to what they are doing than what they could as a single unit.
ReplyDelete