On The Global Trend And The Contextual Needs in Education
Since my work is on educational change and reform and its manifests itself at the local level, I come across two kinds of arguments: one that the local context is more important for change to take place; and the other that the global trends should be followed to keep up with the world. In this writing I argue that global trend and local/contextual practices are in dialectic relation with each other: nothing more important than the other.
Any new reform and especially a national reform is criticized at the local level being globally influenced and not catering for local needs. However the reality is that in this century of rapid change, globalization has not only influenced nations or states but also reached to individual lives effecting daily activities. This means that globalization is inevitable phenomena and must be embraced, however with proper scrutiny and better analysis.
Globalization has negative as well as positive impacts. Negative impacts of international frictions that manifests themselves in local context endangering human lives deserves the highest level of resistance and criticism. These international type of frictions are of political and religious in nature. However the positive effects of globalization must be embraced with due analysis of the local context and need. Here I will be talking about educational change and how globalization is an important element in driving reform and changes in education. Of especially mention is the development of a national curriculum keeping the global perspective in view.
A stud of a national level reform and its enactment at the local school level is the case here. My preconception as a researcher was that the reform in itself is globally influenced and is an imposed intervention which is a burden on teachers and many teachers and proponents of contextual practices believe the same. However I now refute this perception and take the stand that because of lack of understanding of the global view, teachers are not able to conceptualize the reform. This has led to a deficit thinking that the reform is a burden and is globally influenced. I thus re-conceptualize the influence of globalization as in a dialectic relationship with the local.
We should not see global and local and separate entities, opposing each other, rather seeing the global and the local in a dynamic and dialectic relationship with each other will harness fruit. Hence the question is not how can the global influences be reduced, rather should be how can the global influences be used in the benefit of the local context. And how can the local practices contribute to the global trends.
Any new reform and especially a national reform is criticized at the local level being globally influenced and not catering for local needs. However the reality is that in this century of rapid change, globalization has not only influenced nations or states but also reached to individual lives effecting daily activities. This means that globalization is inevitable phenomena and must be embraced, however with proper scrutiny and better analysis.
Globalization has negative as well as positive impacts. Negative impacts of international frictions that manifests themselves in local context endangering human lives deserves the highest level of resistance and criticism. These international type of frictions are of political and religious in nature. However the positive effects of globalization must be embraced with due analysis of the local context and need. Here I will be talking about educational change and how globalization is an important element in driving reform and changes in education. Of especially mention is the development of a national curriculum keeping the global perspective in view.
A stud of a national level reform and its enactment at the local school level is the case here. My preconception as a researcher was that the reform in itself is globally influenced and is an imposed intervention which is a burden on teachers and many teachers and proponents of contextual practices believe the same. However I now refute this perception and take the stand that because of lack of understanding of the global view, teachers are not able to conceptualize the reform. This has led to a deficit thinking that the reform is a burden and is globally influenced. I thus re-conceptualize the influence of globalization as in a dialectic relationship with the local.
We should not see global and local and separate entities, opposing each other, rather seeing the global and the local in a dynamic and dialectic relationship with each other will harness fruit. Hence the question is not how can the global influences be reduced, rather should be how can the global influences be used in the benefit of the local context. And how can the local practices contribute to the global trends.
Comments
Post a Comment