The development of new communication and broadcast technologies heralds fundamental changes for society, however O’Donnell & Engells warn that we should avoid extremism and “..must not be hypnotized by technology or the threats and opportunities that technology seems to offer…”(1999) O’Donnell and Engells provide historical evidence of softer, less extreme technological revolutions, suggesting that technology, more often than not, heralds change as a slower process of integration and adaptation. (1999)
Willinsky’s article aligns with this thread of thinking because he offers a sensible, moderate analysis of the possible impact of using communication and publication technologies to shift power away from mass media “mega-corporations” and back into the hands of “the people” through more transparent, open access to research. (2002, p. 15) He suggests that if research is more accessible it may change the general public’s relationship to research, which in turn could change the research itself, creating a better dialogue between “the public” and “…democracy’s necessary class of experts…” (Willinsky, 2002, p. 7) There is a consistent message of reciprocity and gradual change between democracy and education.
The message of moderation and balance is essential for exploring technology’s impact on society, and as I try to wrangle concepts and themes from this module into a coherent blog post I find myself tending towards extreme-isms myself and having to erase sentences about “balance of power” and “tipping points”. Why does this topic nudge me towards this kind of language? Part of the reason may be a tendency to envision the culmination of change rather than the (much less exciting) process of change.
As an education technology trainer, I have found that people frequently have unrealistic and extreme expectations about technology. Regularly I find myself having to explain that technology doesn’t solve problems without creating new ones and that there is no perfect, “holy grail” technology solution. Vendors and salesmen do not help, nor does consumer culture in general.
I recently (in October) had the opportunity to watch Fiona Hollands present her research from 2017 about “EdTech Decision-making in higher education”. Hollands interviewed 52 EdTech decision makers from institutes of higher education, mostly across the US, to understand “…factors and information sources that influence decisions about educational technology acquisition and use in higher education.” (Hollands and Escueta, 2017, p. 3) The study reveals consistent influence of vendors in the decision-making process, and few instances of measuring technology’s impact on student engagement, completion and retention. (Hollands and Escueta, 2017, p. 5)
I think Willinsky would agree that examining the processes by which EdTech decisions are made is precisely the kind of research all stakeholders in education should have access to. It is the kind of information that helps me advocate for pedagogy over salesmanship and dispel the myths around “holy grail” technology.
As I endeavor to wrap this up, I find my thoughts lingering on the final idea O’Donnell leaves us with concerning how new forms of authority will manifest in cyberspace. Can we begin to identify those new authorities 19 years later? It seems likely to me that they exist and are blended with more traditional forms, creating hybrid examples and suggestions of how the world might be in another 20 years.
Engell, J. (Presenter) & O’Donnell, J. (Presenter). (1999). From Papyrus to Cyberspace [radio broadcast]. Retrieved from https://canvas.ubc.ca/courses/4290/files/609973/preview
Hollands, F. M., & Escueta, M. (2017). EdTech decision-making in higher education: Summary. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/583b86882e69cfc61c6c26dc/t/59324916bebafbe3e1e8d9eb/1496467737835/EdTech+Decision-making+in+Higher+Education_Summary.pdf
Willinsky, J. (2002). Education and Democracy: The Missing Link May Be Ours. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 367-392.
bradley forsyth
June 7, 2018 — 11:51 am
Hi Sally,
O’Donnell’s (1999) comments regarding avoiding Utopian and Apocalyptic language resonated with me as well. He reminds us that reality is usually more muddled and technological innovations become manageable over time. I can still remember being nine years old and checking my computer on New Year’s Day of 2000 to make sure it had not crashed due to the Y2K bug.
I found Daniel Chandler’s “Technological or Media Determinism” to be particularly thought provoking as he discusses the different theories that explore the extent that technology “does or does not condition social change (1995).” He warns to not subscribe to either extreme position – that of technological determinism in which technology acts the “prime mover in history,” or that in which technology is a completely neutral tool in which change is determined by the ways in which we choose to use it. Ultimately, Chandler concludes, “Any technological change which is great enough is likely to produce some social change.”
Ong (1982), Postman (1992), and O’Donnell (1999) all commented on the ebb and flow of shifting power monopolies that occur at the onset and throughout the lifespan of technological innovations, and the ability of technology to historically disrupt the status quo. I wonder if we can utilize significant technological developments in our daily lives without somehow changing ourselves.
I found your comments regarding the unrealistic expectations of implementing a “holy grail” technology solution to be insightful as well. When it comes to implementing technology either in the classroom or in an online learning environment, I think we need to consider our own values and the benefits and drawbacks the technology may have on particular subject areas and learner types in order to make rational choices that will best improve educational practice. It is also important to consider the use of technologies, such as social media platforms, in non-conventional ways from which they were originally intended.
References
Chandler, D. (1995). Technological or Media Determinism [Online]. Retrieved, 8 August, 2009 from http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/tecdet/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Engell J. & O’Donnell J. (1999). From Papyrus to Cyberspace. [Audio File]. Cambridge Forums. Retrieved from https://canvas.ubc.ca/courses/4290/files/609973/preview
Ong, Walter. (1982.) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.
Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage Books.
sally bourque
June 7, 2018 — 8:55 pm
Hi Bradley,
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Yes! I can totally relate to Y2K! I was an angsty teenager at the time and was completely convinced that something wild was going to happen!
In Biases of the Ear and Eye, Chandler also suggests that we should “…consider the overall ecology of processes of mediation in which our behaviour is not technologically determined but in which we both use a medium and can be subtly influenced by it.” (1995) Chandler seems to conclude “Technological or Media Determinism” with re-stating that deterministic stances are limited but can’t be entirely rejected because technology does impact society, sometimes even in widespread and major ways. So again, it’s a criticism of technological determinism, but not a complete rejection.
When I first started working in EdTech, I didn’t realize how technology tends to perpetuate the need for more technology. For example, recently I’ve been coordinating vendor demos for new video conferencing software and one of them described a new feature they built called “activity monitor” so teachers can check an analytics screen to see if their students have other applications open while attending the vidcon class. The idea is that this would be one way instructors could determine whether students were focused on the session and not playing games or browsing other websites. In a “traditional” class, you would likely be able to look around and gauge how much students were paying attention, no extra tools required. I wonder if it’s fair to say that older technologies like language and writing also perpetuated the need (ultimately) for more technology?
References:
Chandler, D. (1995). Technological or Media Determinism [Online]. Retrieved, 8 August, 2009 from http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/tecdet/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Chandler, D. (1995). Biases of the Ear and Eye [Online]. Retrieved, 8 August, 2009 from http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/litoral/