Discussion 3

Discussion 3 was due June 21, and here were the instructions we received:

Description/summary of main ideas in chapter 6. (* Required component)

Select two of the following for discussion:

A. Discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the chapter.

B. How could teachers/educators use the material/information addressed in the chapter to help improve their instruction or professional development?

C. What future trends do you see coming from the topics dealt with in the chapter? In other words, do you think the material/information discussed in the chapter has any relevancy to the future or is it just a passing fad?

D. What you learned from reading this chapter? If the article did not reveal any new information, explain what you already know about the topic and how you gained that knowledge (e.g., experience, word-of-mouth, research).

E. Did you feel this chapter helped in your understanding of the use of technology in education? Explain why or why not. Did anything confuse you? Did the chapter leave more questions for you?

My answer:
Summary
Over the last 1,000 years, the university system has not changed much. It was a centralized location where people came to learn. However, in recent times, a university has become a centralized location where people all over the world can learn through e-learning. This is the first major change in the university system, and with the advances in technology, it’s not likely to be the last one we’ll see in our lifetime.

There is a debate between whether technology is a tool that moves societies along or if technology has moved beyond our control and has basically taken on a life on its own. One of these positions is technological determinism, which states that technology is the driving force in the modern world. Another perspective is the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) theory, which states that technology is a tool that is designed, developed, and used within a social system and, as a result, is largely shaped by social issues. SCOT’s basic premise is that technologies are tools that societies develop and use to further their own goals. The two advantages of the SCOT theory is that studying technology from the SCOT perspective requires one to have a broad and non-linear view of technology (Pinch & Bijker, 2003). Additionally, the SCOT theory sees users as active agents of technology who are shaping the technology in the way they need (Oudshoorn & Pinch, 2005). A third theory, which is more down the middle of the road, related to this topic is the Co-construction of Technology theory, which sees technology and society affecting each other equally.

Two other definitions that were discussed were implementation, which is the process of fostering the effective use of technology after its adoption, and evaluation, which includes four levels: reaction, learning, transfer, and impact (Kirkpatrick, 1994). Impact, while it may be the most difficult level, is the most important goal because that shows how well the training did. Determining impact in higher education may be even harder than in business models. As a result, the impact measured by universities is often based on superficial, incomplete, or extraneous factors.

The university has to find the right balance between technology and human considerations without risking ethical and philosophical issues. As University 2.0 expands around the globe, educators will have to adapt and teach topics and develop courses relevant to this changing technology. However, many problems exist when a student takes all his or her courses online. Students lose the culturally unique experiences of a university or may have a stagnant educational experience. Also, students may lose a sense of identity and affiliation with the university they attend, which is a result of social plasticity, which is the breakdown of traditional social structures due to the rise of technological determination. Another problem is that as students take classes around the world, despite their physical location, states could begin to lose revenue to colleges in other states.

University administrators should discuss the possible benefits and risks of University 2.0 with experts from a wide variety of fields and include a broad, multidisciplinary discussion. While implementation is often thought of as more important yet more difficult than adoption, universities should continue to encourage their faculty and staff to continue to develop e-learning materials. Also, each university needs to realize that its needs are different from other universities, so each technology plan needs to be altered to fit that particular university. Six steps that Surry (2008) recommends are as follows: increase awareness, take individual responsibility, provide for meaningful choice, push decisions down in the hierarchy, reduce social plasticity, and establish formalized oversight. Create hybrid classes or develop viral clubs and student groups.

It is crucial for the universities to respond to the change taking place and to integrate these technologies into their long range plans. Universities need to recognize and address the needs of students and faculty who may not understand how to use the technologies, and they also need to understand the changes and be able to anticipate the problems and opportunities that may arise.

What future trends do you see coming from the topics dealt with in the chapter? In other words, do you think the material/information discussed in the chapter has any relevancy to the future or is it just a passing fad?

This is definitely NOT a passing fad. One of the things I really like about this class is that we learn about the new trends coming into play – Second Life, for instance. I think that’s a fantastic way to get to know people online. It’s a way for students to express their own personalities and connect with students and faculty from anywhere in the world (though maybe not Asia, lol). I can definitely see myself using Second Life in future online courses. I think the students would love it. They all (and that’s no exaggeration) have Facebook, and many of them have Twitter and MySpace accounts. Social networking is the “it” thing now – but I am excited to see what will be the new thing in the next couple of years.

And that’s the thing, isn’t it? It’s constantly changing. When I started college, IM was the way to keep in touch online. Then Xanga blogs were the big hit on campus. Then we all (pretty much) made the move to MySpace. At the end of my undergrad career (note this all happened in a three-year time span), everyone suddenly had a Facebook. Now we have Twitter and iPhones and interactive, online games (which my husband loves, ha!), and it’s amazing how you can connect with someone online. My husband and a few of his friends have a College Dynasty in which they play against each other online. One of his friends lives in Pineville, La., and another in Frisco, Texas. Yet they can all meet up online and play against each other. I just think that’s fascinating.

Did you feel this chapter helped in your understanding of the use of technology in education? Explain why or why not. Did anything confuse you? Did the chapter leave more questions for you?

It definitely helped me. I didn’t think really about the role university administrators must play in order for e-learning to be successful. Our college president is really great about foreseeing the next big thing, and he has already implemented our need for each faculty member to teach an online class.

References

Downes, S. (2010). Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge. In Yang, H. H., & Yuen, S. C. (Eds.), Collective Intelligence and E-Learning 2.0: Implications of Web-Based Communities and Networking (pp. 1-26). Hershey, Pennsylvania: Information Science Reference.

Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Oudshoorn, N. & Pinch, T. (2005). Introduction: How users and non-users matter. In N. Oudshoorn & T. Pinch (Eds.), How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology (pp. 1-25). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Pinch, T.J., & Bijker, W.E. (2003). The social construction of facts and artifacts. In R.C. Scharff & V. Duesek (Eds.), The philosophy of technology: The technological condition: An anthology (pp. 221-232). Malden, MA: Blackwell.