The role of the cultural industrial complex became of the first order in the construction of imaginary, narratives and perspectives,of appropriation of the emerging, tasks previously assigned to schools. Despite this, counted universities of teaching training (initial and continuous) and training centers of trainers, incorporated in their pen sum the study of the goods of cinema, television, music, comic, the press in the construction of knowledge.
The numbered studies of the goods of the cultural industrial complex were critical analyses of their role, but they did not finish understanding the cognitive dispute,the tension that this generated with respect to educational institutions. Color television, the emerging video clip industry in the 1980s reaffirmed this trend.
The emergence of Epson HX-20 (1981), Osborne 1 (1981) and Micro tor I (1985) laptops made it clear that computing and computing were soon available to everyone. Criticism multiplied about the inability of schools to develop the new, while teacher training centers saw it as an externalize that would not reach schools before the actors of that time retired. The teaching guilds began to develop an anti-technology discourse justified in the impossibility of access to it by existing social inequalities, something that, while true, prevented the thought of the pedagogical dimension of what was coming.
The Nintendo 64 connected millions of children and young people with the digital world, with computing linked to everyday life. Although it was not the first video game console, at least the most popular in Latin America and the one that became popular in language and occasionally use the popular sectors.
Schools saw video games as a distraction from home learning time and, teacher training did not teach the functional logic of these dynamics, nor did it explore the possibility of their use for educational purposes. Studies were counted in this regard, but with a limited impact on teacher training and the daily practice of educators.
The advent of the internet in the 1990s, the move from the MS-DOS operating system (1985) to Windows 95, the popularization of web pages, involved a break of generational dialogue between the so-called “digital natives” and their predecessors “digital immigrants”, much more with “technological illiteracy”.
Very few ministries of education and teaching guilds worked the impact of technology on the educational beyond endowment as a problem, it seemed that the shock wave was never going to arrive or were waiting for a model to copy.
Precisely international NGOs and computer corporations such as Google or Microsoft saw this gap in the dashboard and concentrated an important part of their budgets to the development of an educational cloud and thousands of associated digital content, as well as digital literacy programs; the neo-educational privatization was underway, now supported by the dispute over space and digital content. On the other hand, from the anti-capitalist resistance, efforts to present alternatives to another use of the digital world in the classroom, in harmony with emancipator proposals, were virtually non-existent.
Social media, and its massive use, not only by young people but directly by 20% and indirectly by 80% of the world’s population, showed that the hegemony of the digital age was already a concrete fact. Despite the possibilities of using some of them for the construction of social resistances as demonstrated by neo-Statistics, the movement is 132, the youth of Chile, the 15M movement, feminists and more recently yellow vests, the pedagogical left kept distance from the “virus” of digital education in the classroom.
When I go to give a conference in any country or auditorium where the teachers are I do a quick visual survey and find that at least 90% of them have a cell phone enabled for working with social networks,videos, interactivity etc. But the problem is that not only do a large group of them not know how to exploit their potential, but many don’t even have the willingness to learn, as if this isn’t going to affect them.
To this contributes the trade union work focused on economics, stability and teaching career with an extension for the alternative pedagogical. This is evident in the few pedagogical publications of the anti-capitalist magisterial movement or its low print volume, as well as in the counted trade union websites dedicated to pedagogical debate.
There is no culture of digital reading of documents and books, but they are not printed; the pragmatism of so-called “alternative message capsules,” purporting to emulate the logic of young people, hides that he has neglected the critical formation of new generations of trade union leaders. Of course this has exceptions with efforts such as those made by CTERA in Argentina or FECODE in Colombia and now ASOPROF, however, in recent times, with limited coverage.
But there were some reactions. In 1996, a group of Rectors of universities in Latin America and the Caribbean, meeting in Havana, Cuba, generated a declaration and convene a World Conference on Higher Education (CMES). The Havana Declaration expressed the concern of university authorities about the impact of technology on the right to education. Virtualization emerged as a concern.
The call for the CMES proposes an ambitious agenda containing the following points: 1 – The demands of the world of work. 2 – Higher education and sustainable development. 3 – Contribution to national and regional development. 4 – The training of higher education staff: a permanent mission. 5 – Higher education for a new society: the student vision. 6 – From the traditional to the virtual: new information technologies. 7 – Higher education and research: challenges and opportunities. 8 – The contribution of higher education to the education system as a whole. 9 – Women and higher education: issues and perspectives. 10 – Promote a culture of peace. ll – Mobilize the power of culture. 12 – Autonomy, social responsibilities and academic freedom.
The debate on spirituality, digital world and acceleration of innovation was inconclusive and was held at the Cartagena (2008) and Cordoba (2018) Conferences. What was clear was the distance between what the university students discussed and the demand for the environment of the third industrial revolution and the course towards a fourth industrial revolution.
The academy continued to be the most important refuge to defend the great values of humanity, the defense of social rights among them education and for the democratization of knowledge, but certainly expresses today a deficit of paradigmatic updating.
On this route UNESCO published two texts expressing market pressure and capitalist mode of production for the use of cutting-edge technology in education. The first, called”Guidelines for Mobile Learning Policies”(2013) and, second,”The Future of Mobile Learning: Implications for Planning and Policy-Making”. Both documents will be discussed in more detail later, but at this time we are interested in highlighting them as a background to the development of the”UNESCO Science Report: Towards 2030” where a detailed inventory of the institutional capacities in the world in research, technological architecture and innovation is made.
That same year, a meeting was held in China to work on the convergence of scientific, technological and digital development with the newly approved UN SDG4. From that meeting emanates the so-called”Qingdao Declaration: Sixteen Digital Opportunities, Transformation of Education”(2015). Attendees draw up a statement, in which numeral 3 of their preamble states that “inspired by a humanist vision of education, based on human and social rights of justice, and given the remarkable advances in ICT and the rapid expansion of the Internet/connectivity, which today have in fact the increasingly connected world, demanding knowledge and familiarity about ICT by children, women and men,” continue with number 4 noting that”to achieve the objectives of inclusion and equity of the quality of education and lifelong learning as a target 2030, ICTs – including mobile learning – must be leveraged to reinforce education.” Then in their numeral seven introduce the concept of”Open Educational Resources (OER)” and open solutions, placing the update in the externalize of schools, dismissing the endogenous capacity to develop teaching skills and institutional capacities to face the challenges of accelerating innovation in education. This text provides a conceptual framework for the privatization of education linked to the development of communication technologies.
In May 2019, UNESCO convened the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education-in Beijing, China, under the slogan”Plan education in the age of AI: one step forward”,which was intended: (a) to discuss the possibilities of anticipating the skills needed to live in the age of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and to share experiences on the development of these skills, something that should allow people to adapt to a society in which AI has its place; (b) exchange on the latest AI trends and how they help design education and learning; (c) assess lessons drawn from new national policies and strategies that enable the use of AI as a tool to achieve SDG 4; and (d) strengthen international cooperation and partnerships with the aim of promoting the equitable, inclusive and transparent use of AI in education.
From this event came the so-called”First consensus on artificial intelligence and education”(2019). Unlike other instruments emanating from world conferences, this statement is blunt and precise in pointing out the imminence and impermeability of the upward and concentric 360-degree change, which the assembled “review recent trends in AI evolution and its profound impact on human societies, economies and the labor market, as well as on education and lifelong learning systems. We examine the implications of AI for the future of work and skill development and consider its potential to reshape the fundamental foundations of education, teaching and learning,”concluding that “the multidisciplinary nature of AI and its impact on learning” must be taken into account. That is, while education systems in the world are in chaos by the use of spirituality, the system as a whole requires the educational use of artificial intelligence to move forward.
In this context, the global emergency of the Corona virus pandemic arises. National school systems are forced to evaluate in hours, the possibilities of developing a proposal for virtual education, at the close of the face-to-face classes as part of the epidemiological fence. The balance is terrible, most education systems do not have the infrastructure stopped addressing this dynamic, the educational authorities have no experience in this regard and teachers have not been trained to do so. Universities and teaching training centers have been training the rear view mirror in recent years.
Virtual education is seen as educational television and digital content as recordings on “video Tape”. We look at the new with lenses from the past and this has a negative impact on the possibility of developing learning that splice with the technological cultural capital of the young and the young.
On 19 March UNESCO expresses its concern about this reality and the fact that as a result of the Corona virus pandemic “more than 850 million children and young people – about half of the world’s student population – remain away from schools and universities, with national closures effective in 102 countries and local closures in 11 other countries (updated on Tuesday 17 at the last minute). This is more than double in four days of the number of students who were barred from attending schools, and is expected to increase further.18.”
On 25 March 2020, it was known that UNESCO was convening government experts to discuss the issue of the suspension of face-to-face classes in many countries. The press office of the multilateral agency reported that”in the last 10 days, the number of students affected by the closure of schools and universities in 138 countries, has almost quadrupled to 1.37 billion, as reported by the United Nations Educational Organization (UNESCO), which means that more than 3 out of 4 children and young people worldwide are not taking face-to-face classes.”
Turbulence runs through the world’s education systems, guilds and teaching unions and the teaching. From night to morning the format of teaching-learning processes is changed. The Corona virus crisis highlighted the paradigmatic gap, skills, infrastructure and funding to develop the digital world in the classroom. Imagine what this new artificial intelligence guideline entails. We must not be very enlightened to realize that an educational fragmentation is underway, that is, a per-technological education, an education that begins to transit the use of virtual and a top-not-like education that is supported in artificial intelligence. For those who speak that this will be a distant future, let me tell you that this conference in Beijing showed you how artificial intelligence is part of everyday life in some Chinese universities. This poses new theoretical challenges for the pedagogical left and for critical pedagogues. The Newtonian educational machine is jumping through the air and those of us thinking about the alternatives we have to discuss and analyze this outburst