An Educational Theory of Innovation: What Constitutes the Educational Good?

Michael A. Peters
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2019.1699992
2020-01-01
Educational Philosophy and Theory
Abstract:At a recent research conference on ‘Education, Pedagogy and Innovation’ held by the Institute of Education and Beijing Normal University, a long-term relationship fostered by Geoff Whitty, I was asked at the last minute to give a talk in place of Gert Biesta, one of the keynote speakers, who had been prevented from boarding a flight in Istanbul for Beijing. He had indicated he was to give a lecture and the immigration official banned him because the official thought Biesta was working – not entirely untrue but very unhelpful and frustrating. At the same time, a couple of days following his keynote Biesta was to attend a ‘salon’ at which the Chinese translation of his book Good Education in An Age of Measurement (2010, 2020) was to be launched with comments from various scholars including myself. In my talk I, therefore, decided to approach this question through the work of Gert Biesta’s Good Education in An Age of Measurement (2010) in which he proposes an ethical argument about ‘purposes’ and ‘ends’. What Biesta had to say is perhaps even more relevant today than when he first developed the argument ten years ago. This is because innovation in education and pedagogy is largely a reflection and outgrowth of what I call ‘Algorithmic Capitalism in the Epoch of Digital Reason’ (Peters, 2017). Innovation emerges in this semiotic networked environment in terms of related set of new digital technologies: AI, ML, Robotics, 5G and quantum computing. Education and pedagogy are increasingly technology-led activities and the changes are heralded as ‘innovation’. Already, it is important to note that in so far as all cultural and educational objects in the new media environment rely on digital representation and computer-based delivery they can be easily reduced to digital data that can be manipulated and controlled by algorithmic software like any other data. The classic features of control in this networked environment rest on the fact of their anonymous, surveilling, centralized, one-to-many, and disciplining effects that taken together reveal some of the central features of the larger context of algorithmic capitalism. This is one reason why, as Deleuze (1992) remarks, we now live in ‘societies of control’ rather than ‘disciplinaries societies’ (after Foucault’s characterization) except that the digital architectures we inhabit are also disciplining in the sense of Bentham’s panopticum. New media technologies provide various forms of technical control of digital systems that are new forms of centralization in education that enhance old industrial ‘one-to-many’ efficiencies, including:
What problem does this paper attempt to address?