Digitalisation and individualisation
An unholy alliance that prevents education – 7 theses
by Prof. Dr Jochen Krautz*
(7 June 2024) (CH-S) German scholar Jochen Krautz outlines the contradiction between digitalisation and education in succinct and apt theses.
* * *
(Picture ma)
Even before the coronavirus crisis, there was a widespread trend in schools to tackle the problem of heterogeneity among pupils through so-called “individualisation”. The classroom community is effectively dissolved, and each pupil is given differentiated work assignments that they are supposed to complete in a “self-directed” manner. A misguided approach.
Digitalisation, which has been accelerated by the coronavirus crisis, now seems to make this even easier: Now everyone can work “individually” and “self-directed” on their own device, whether at home or at school.
However, both undermine the role of schools and jeopardise the constitutional educational mandate. Why is this the case?
Here are 7 concise theses:
1. Strengthening the teacher instead of “learning assistance”
Heterogeneity is nothing new, it is a matter of course. It is not solved by breaking up learning groups and lowering standards, but by strengthening the class community and bringing weaker students up to higher levels. However, this requires a teacher who leads the class educationally and professionally. In other words, the exact opposite of the trend towards “learning assistance” (cf. Rudolph/Leinemann 2021).
2. “Self-direction” is not independence
Those who only carry out work assignments from learning software or worksheets do not develop independence. Rather, they only control themselves according to external instructions. They learn to adapt, but not to think and reason independently. This requires a lively and interested human counterpart – i.e. teachers and classmates. Adaption, however, contradicts the educational mandate of the constitutions, which is aimed at maturity.
3. “Individualisation” does not result in individuality
Therefore, external “individualisation” does not create individuality, but promotes conformity. To become an individual self, young people need social contact, dialogue, contradiction and challenges to be overcome together. However, the formation of individuality is pedagogically challenging because teachers must face children and young people as whole persons, not just as administrators of learning processes.
4. Digitalisation is whole class teaching of the worst kind
Advocates of “digital” and “self-directed learning” like to distance themselves from “whole class teaching”. In fact, digital or analogue “self-directed learning” is whole class teaching in its worst form, the likes of which can hardly be found anywhere else. The worksheet and the algorithm do not answer me, do not discuss, do not perceive me, have no expertise, do not know what education is, know no didactics and have no pedagogical empathy. They rule over the heads of the pupils – or rather: enter them.
5. Digitalisation is based on lobbying
The supposedly “no alternative” digitalisation of schools has no pedagogical reasons, but rather banal economic ones. It is based on massive lobbying by the IT industry and its adepts. In the crisis surrounding coronavirus, politicians, the media, parents and many teachers have fuelled the staged hysteria. However, digitalisation will not solve any educational problems; it will not automatically improve teaching. Rather, the meaningful integration of digitalisation into the school’s tasks requires very precise and clear pedagogical, didactic and subject-specific thinking (cf. Krautz 2020).
6. Neoliberalism and reform pedagogy celebrate a marriage
But why is all this so popular and seems so modern? Two older lines of discourse are merging here:
Reformist pedagogical thinking stems from the opinion, or even just the subconscious feeling, that children should rather “develop freely”. Teaching is somehow contrary to freedom, the content and demands of our culture would have a negative impact on children’s “naturalness”. The idea that learners are “entrepreneurs of themselves” and would acquire the “skills” and “competences” they need as a flexible and adaptable workforce in “learning environments” that look like open-plan offices stems from neoliberal thinking.
Both ideas are factually incorrect and anti-educational. In fact, both leave young people in the lurch: on the one hand, they are left to their own devices, and on the other, to the adaptation imperatives of the neoliberal economy (cf. Krautz 2017).
7. Taking pedagogical responsibility seriously
What is the outlook? By taking pedagogical responsibility and by teaching, learning, educating and practising again. It’s exhausting, of course. But if we were to turn our collective attention to these questions again instead of experimenting with unfounded concepts on children and young people, we could spare them and ourselves the foreseeable and bitter failure.
| * Jochen Krautz (* 1966) is a German scholar. He has been a professor of art at the University of Wuppertal since 2013. He is a founding member of the publication series “IMAGO. Kunst.Pädagogik.Didaktik”, the “Forschungsverbund Kunstpädagogik” and presides over the “Gesellschaft für Bildung und Wissen” (GBW). |
(Translation “Swiss Standpoint”)
Literature for in-depth study
Matthias Burchardt. Zwischen Arbeitsblatt und Bildschirm. Neue Lernkultur oder Kaspar-Hauser-Pädagogik? In: Das Gymnasium in Rheinland-Pfalz, H. 1/2018, pages 6–12.
https://www.philologenverband.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Das_Gymnasium/Gymnasium_in_Rh-Pf_1-2018__JR__Endgueltig.pdf
Andreas Gruschka. Der Bildungs-Rat der Gesellschaft für Bildung und Wissen. Opladen 2015.
www.bildung-wissen.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/gruschka_bildundgs_rat.pdf
Jochen Krautz. Neoliberaler Ökologismus. «Markt» und «Natur» als Steuerungsparadigmen der «Neuen Lernkultur». In: Burchardt, Matthias/Molzberger, Rita (Hrsg.): Bildung im Widerstand. Festschrift für Ursula Frost. Würzburg 2017, pages 121–146.
Jochen Krautz. Digitalisierung als Gegenstand und Medium von Unterricht. Keine digitale Transformation von Schule. GBW-Flugschriften Nr. 1. Köln 2020.
https://bildung-wissen.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/krautz_flugschrift_digitalisierung.pdf
Ralf Lankau. Alternative IT-Infrastruktur für Schule und Unterricht. Wie man digitale Medientechnik zur Emanzipation und Förderung der Autonomie des Menschen einsetzt, statt sich von IT-Systemen und Algorithmen steuern zu lassen. GBW-Flugschriften Nr. 2. Köln 2020.
https://bildung-wissen.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/lankau_flugschrift_web.pdf
Christoph Türcke. Lehrerdämmerung. Was die neue Lernkultur in den Schulen anrichtet. München 2016.
Michael Rudolph / Susanne Leinemann. Wahnsinn Schule. Was sich dringend ändern muss. Berlin 2021.
Michael Winterhoff. Deutschland verdummt. Wie das Bildungssystem die Zukunft unserer Kinder verbaut. Gütersloh 2019.