tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post115669586972875035..comments2024-03-28T11:36:22.391-04:00Comments on Half an Hour: Education, Technology and MythStephen Downeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-1156709869941553852006-08-27T16:17:00.000-04:002006-08-27T16:17:00.000-04:00Stephen,Let me respond selectively (the only way I...Stephen,<BR/><BR/>Let me respond selectively (the only way I can) to your lengthy post. <BR/><BR/>First, I think that this debate, interesting as it is, arises largely from two different emphases or orientations. <BR/><BR/>You are looking for a set of logical, fairly absolute claims in my writing. You provide examples: "technology does or does not have any influence on education" "technological change is or is not inevitable"<BR/><BR/>I, on the other hand, have been arguing that there are problems with the discourses, frameworks and theoretical assumptions in e-learning. <BR/><BR/>I am not in any way trying to make the claims that you derive from my statements (a is always true; b is always false). That is not my intention at all. I instead am taking typical claims in the literature (which also are generally not in the forms of logical propositions); I am then trying to show how the frameworks and suppositions associated with such statements contradict what has been articulated in other, related fields (e.g. sociology, history, philosophy). That’s why I use words or phrases like "technology driving change" or "impact;" they are important because they are used in the literature, and because they imply understandings and emphases that are highly problematic. (Perhaps this disconnect is the reason why you unhelpfully complain that my writing, and that of other academics, is "interminably vague.")<BR/><BR/>To put it another way: Of course technology has effected education. But what I object to is the very proposition or question itself. <BR/><BR/>It involves questionable assumptions and closes off on other, better questions. To assert and to base research projects using this proposition or question is to assume that "technology" is a kind of first cause. It is to assume that questions of education (more generally speaking, users) influencing technology is secondary or that it can somehow be meaningfully excluded from what technology and education are. Finally, it is to assume that other, similar factors (messy stuff like culture, history, etc.) is also of secondary importance, and can also be meaningfully excluded. Historical and sociological (i.e. empirical) research has shown empirically that technologies and society cannot be meaningfully researched without taking these assumptions into account. We need to realize this in the case of e-learning, too.<BR/><BR/>The problems arising from our disconnect, Stephen, seem to come to a head in a number of places (throughout?), but let me choose two short paragraphs that struck me in particular (italicized):<BR/><BR/><I>Considering the question of how technology effects these changes, I would suggest that this is an empirical question. Specifically, we need to ask, has technology moved through society gradually, or does it impact society all at once, or is some other method of propagation evident? Empirically, it appears that when a new technology is introduced, it diffuses, and that the nature of this diffusion is relatively predictable, at least, for those technologies that have become popular<BR/><BR/>Moreover, it is important to ask about the factors that may impact this rate of diffusion, such as social connectivity, or the cost of the technology, or the ease of use of the technology. But again, it is important to stress that these are empirical principles.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree with you that our discussion is based on empirical questions. However, the question of how diffusion works is not at all an empirical one. My point is that "diffusion" itself is a construct --a construction that has highly problematic entailments: For example, that technology is introduced from the outside of society (and the other ones that I have listed above and in the original piece). <BR/><BR/>Just as an example: Do you see your adoption of a given technology, Stephen, as conforming to "the mathematics of its diffusion through society"? Or maybe it more complex –e.g. do you and others have agency, can you hack and change the technology rather than "adopting" it, etc.?<BR/><BR/>Finally, your question about Moore’s law has made it clear to me that I should have added a few more sentences in that part of my original posting. My point, again, was not to contest the empirical validity of Moore’s claim. (Aren’t those kinds of arguments rather uninteresting?) Instead, my argument is that Moore’s law is largely irrelevant to questions of change in society and education. To use a statement from Future Hype: The Myths of Technology Change (BTW, a great book): "just because a computer is 100 times faster, doesn’t make it 100 times more useful." A hypothesis ("law") regarding some technical or other metric doesn’t translate in any direct way into social, educational or other changes. That’s way using them in predictions about the future of e-learning should be avoided. <BR/><BR/>One final plea: How many times have all of us sat through presentations in the last 10 years, and heard Drucker cited on the disappearance of university campuses, or Ellison on e-learning making email look like a rounding error? We need to start questioning the terms that this kind of thinking is based on. Only that way will we stop history from proving us wrong, and undermining our efforts and predictions.Normhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07572567016350876024noreply@blogger.com