Hughes Ch. 4

Consider the idea of “closed systems” as applied to Education. IS it a closed system? Does it fulfill Hughes’ notion of what a closed system is? IF no, why not? IF so, how?

In chapter 4, Hughes discusses technology’s systems, controls and information and discovers the challenges that come with managing it. Hughes states, “Technological and organization systems are often so complex, so large, and so heterogeneous that interdisciplinary interactive groups sharing perspectives and information are needed to create and control them” (pg. 78).

The term closed implies a disconnect from other systems. As I am writing this I am still unresolved about how I would classify Education. First, I will consider it a closed system. On a state level, education has its own department that issues regulations and requirements for all schools to comply. Schools districts operate independently of one another and this filters down to individual schools. Teachers are often unwilling to open their classrooms to others and do not share ideals; however, this is changing with the implementation of professional learning communities within schools. States issue a core curriculum that should be taught and is tested, thus teachers are told what to teach.

Now I will consider education as an open system. Education is inter-connected to other systems. For example, colleges are geared to prepare individuals for careers. Agencies work with school systems to promote student learning. Many companies develop products for education. Schools are using technology and reaching beyond the classroom. I think that education is a system that could affect a bigger system, America. A breakdown in education could have ramifications that would affect all of society. People who are not educated will struggle or depend on the welfare system. A breakdown in education could lead to a regression in developing technologies, a collapse of the economic system and increased societal problems.

What one thing stood out to you about the notion of systems, communications and control? Is your idea of “cybernetics” changed now that you know what it is?

I was surprised that the military had such an influence on the development of communications and control. Forman’s conclusion that scientific talent flows where national priorities place incentives of money, prestige and excitement was no surprise. These systems approach was then applied to urban areas to solve the pressing urban problems. Another thought was that the attention that was given to developing these systems has been lost. Our nation’s deteriorating infrastructure is a neglected priority at the moment, e.g., sink holes that open up due to water leaks.

I had no prior conceptualization of cybernetics so my idea could not change. I was surprised that cybernetics was born out of the designing and analyzing of gunfire-control devices. This idea was later applied to human sciences. Cyborgs (cybernetic organisms) are an integration of human and machine like a robot. I now see cybernetics as the control of information electronically between electronic systems and electromechanical devices at a distance. I would propose that developments in this area have progressed dramatically with moon rovers and bomb diffusing robots. I would also think that cyborgs have captivated the big screen on more than one occasion as well (I’ll be back…. Terminator).

One other interesting point was the connection of the sciences and systems. I was taken back to Postman and his humanizing of machines in the sense that he rambled on about a computer being like a human, e.g. infected with a virus. I had the same feeling in reading about biology and the systems in which they developed and the language in which they discussed them.