I am part of Team 2 that chose to explore the educational videos from Khan Academy. The goal of Khan Academy is to promote (free) learning to everyone regardless of their geographical location with their asynchronous online learning that has “approximately 3,000 videos” (Bhaskar, 2015). This altruistic act from its founder Sal Khan has been praised by leaders and influencers, such as Bill Gates and Michelle Obama (Schwartz, 2013). My daughter, who is in grade four, uses their courses, predominantly their English and Math subject, as supplemental learning. Although I find it useful to help with my daughter’s acquisition of English and Math skills, some areas could be improved.
Our team selected to watch the growth mindset learning activity. It is divided into three sections based on the audience: teachers, elementary, and high school students. The course reinforces the practice of reflecting and practicing skills to achieve mastery. Even when I was engaging with the content and the guided questions, I cannot help wondering how culturally inclusive the learning design of the videos and guided practices in accommodating the diversity of learners that access their courses. According to Muller & Ragoonaden (2017), a culturally responsive pedagogy is an approach that aims to acknowledge learners’ diversity in culture, values, and belief systems. From a social-constructivist and situation cognition theories, learning is a cultural activity, and a social process (McLoughlin & Oliver, 2000) and that knowledge are constructed based on one’s views and experiences. If learning is a cultural activity and meaning-making is a social learning process, what is then the role of educational media in supporting learning in a culturally diverse society? A growth mindset is a western ideology, and the learning activities seem to cater to a crowd that shares the same viewpoints or belief systems. Hence, if the learner does not share the value of self-reflection and learning from mistakes, this incongruence in values could have a negative impact on the learner’s learning experience. Boyd claims that education technologies can either be domesticating or liberating. They can be domesticating when the voices of the majority are considered valid knowledge and ignoring the “socially constructed nature of all knowledge” (as cited in Lauzon, 2000). The liberating capacity of technologies exists in the construction of shared meaning through its communication channel of dialogue. Through this channel, we can learn and re-map the borders of learning and make it inclusive.
As I critically explore the role of educational media in socializing and influencing learners’ identities, values, and belief systems, and their knowledge about issues that affect their lives, I have several questions that I am trying to examine as a research topic. First, how do you accommodate the range of narratives of diverse learners to develop a culturally inclusive educational video? Second, how can a culturally responsive pedagogy in educational media contribute to promoting cultural tolerance? Third, what is the socio-cultural impact of educational media in open and free global learning? As I scrutinize these potential questions for my research topic, I am immersing myself in understanding the complexities of designing learning and how can a genuinely culturally inclusive design be implemented to call it learning for everyone. I also invite my fellow cohort to provide me with their feedback and insight on what I should consider as I embark on this learning process. Thanks!
References
Bhaskar, S. (2015, May 6). Thoughts on Khan Academy [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://higheredrevolution.com/thoughts-on-khan-academy-354898a13c92
Lauzon, A. C. (2000). Distance education and diversity: Are they compatible? American Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 61–70. https://doi-org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1080/08923640009527055
McLoughlin, C., & Oliver, R. (2000). Designing learning environments for cultural inclusivity: A case study of the indigenous online learning at tertiary level. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 58–72. Retrieved from https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/article/10.1007/s11528-018-0272-y#citeas
Muller, L. & Ragoonaden, K. (2017). Culturally Responsive Pedagogy: Indigenizing Curriculum. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 47(2), 22-46. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1154077
Schwartz, M. (2013). Khan Academy: The illusion of understanding. Online Learning Journal, 17(4). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/183760/
Sharon this looks like a promising and important exploration of culture, diversity and learning within the context of educational media. Your take on “education for all,” when viewed through the lens of diversity as you do here, reveals a different picture and offers strong counter-narrative to a techno-determinist view that seems to be espoused by so many billionaire philanthropists. You’ve raised good questions to consider for a critical inquiry, and I’m glad you’re taking some time to for your focus to be narrowed for this study.
Thank you Irwin for your comment. It is fascinating as I read more on the topic of culturally inclusive design and culturally responsive pedagogy in education technology that I sense the tension in the literature between the idealistic notion of education technology (online learning) in democratizing learning, making it accessible to all and the perspectives of the others that may view this as a way of forced assimilation to the ” views of the perceived majority” (Kennedy, 2012). Is education technology domesticating or liberating? How can we ensure that educational technology, in the context of media, gives voice to all and not the privileged few?