More technological determinism: “Neoclassical theory treats changes in technology the same way it treats changes in physical nature: it considers both to be exogenous to human beings. For example, it treats a new way of combining capital and labor together to produce output the way it would treat ‘improved rainfall’: as a gift of nature” (Wolff and Resnick 102). But “The neoclassicals treat the problems caused by imperfections in markets, on the other hand, like those arising from uncertainty. The effects of imperfections and uncertainty on the labor market can be traced ultimately to our nature as human beings” (Wolff and Resnick 103). Helps me to see how market ideologies interact with the wired writing classroom in the context of the vocational education model.
It’s Always the User’s Fault
This brings to my mind that spending on computers in the classroom would be justified–or perhaps not need justification–because the presence of new technology is natural, or that “it’s something they need to know,” because what prevails in the workplace is, well, natural. On the other hand, students’ failure to learn even given the computers would be blamed on the students, not on the lack of appropriate pedagogical methods or weak institutional support. Is that it, or am I missing something?
I think that’s exactly it; you’ve nailed the reasoning precisely — although I would add that students’ failure to learn is more often blamed on the teacher than the student, especially those dangerous, radical teachers who bring politics into their classrooms.