Final Project Video

There is an article in the upcoming issue of the Journal of Effective  Teaching related to this project.  Here is a link to the article:  Click here to read article

Module 6

Dr. Soloway, in the pod-cast, discusses the things or “atoms” that are the tangible object – the computer, the cell phone, the i-pad, etc.  However Soloway also points out that the “thing” is not as important as the “service” in today’s tech oriented, digital society.  This required a change not only in the perspective of what one needs to have but in the meaning or definition of what is technology.  In the past technology was a thing – the technology enhanced classroom, the new technology purchased for our school, etc.  We appear to believe that the technology (all by itself) would make something happen.  From my experience I have seen some professors do wonderful things in the technology-enhanced classroom and some do things that are absolutely useless, however I have never seen the classroom teach all by itself.  It is important to recognize that technology (as a thing) can facilitate something positive, but all by itself – technology as a thing – does nothing (positive or negative).

I have been watching “Watson” (the IBM Computer) on Jeopardy this week.  Watson is an atom-based machine/computer.    On Tuesday’s program Watson appeared brilliant compared to his human competitors...until final jeopardy.  Both human competitors had the correct question and Watson was wrong!  So what happened?  The answer to final jeopardy item required multiple pieces of information:  A US city (the category), has 2 airports, a war hero and a major battle!  While the two humans were able to process all these factors and come up with the correct answer, Watson did not! So while the IBM team behind Watson conquered the ability to recognize “natural language” the complexity of the high level cognitive thinking process requiring access of multiple items from one’s long-term memory (storage) – still was not doable.   So my conclusion --- while I was watching the show (the first 20 minutes), I was feeling pretty low about the future of the human mind, but after a good night’s sleep to reflect on the outcome of final jeopardy – I have concluded it is essential that we do not promote or accept a world in which technology is seen as the dominant force in education, economic, health or any other segment of societies function.  Clearly it is a resource but it is not the ultimate perfect brain. 

So how does all this related to the global divide and the haves and have-nots?  Clearly Soloway, the Bloomberg Report and even the European Information Society European information society have a perspective.  However until we live in a utilitarian society we need to recognize individualization, choice and differences – both those of free-will and situational constraint. I am all for fairness and equality and equal access to help others learn, grow, and achieve their dreams.  But I am not certain why equality to technology is any different than equality to health care, education, or financial wealth?  Are we looking for a society based on equality or uniqueness or variation?

 I also think we sometimes use concerns about barriers to technology as an excuse to not look at more process or service oriented issues.  Both in my own experience and in the experiences I have heard others share throughout one of the greatest barrier is the lack of the atom-based things, with little attention to what will be done with the things – once they are purchased.  Therefore I think Soloway is on target in saying we need to embrace the services and not the items of technology.  In this shift, the emphasis is re-focused to the human to human interaction and not the machine.

Additional reading:

The Digital Divide Workshop: http://www.digitaldivide.net/

Module 5:

•  When you decided to obtain a DVD for your science fiction assignment in Module 4, where did you go to find a movie based on a Philip K. Dick book? Did you rent or purchase a DVD, or did you view it digitally on your computer using Netflix or a similar vendor of video on demand?

I viewed it digitally, online.  As I shared before, I am not a sci-fi fan and we are not big movie watchers (last time I was in a movie theater I saw…Chicago).  In fact, we do not have a DVD player, so on-line was the only option.

•  Is the current competition between DVDs and video on demand (VOD) an example of increasing returns or Red Queens?

DVD and VOD technologies are an example of Red Queens.  According to Thornburg (2009), increasing returns are two innovations that hit the marketplace at the same time.  On the other hand, according to Thornburg (2009), Red Queens are two technologies that are dominating the marketplace and confronting each other in a struggle to continue to benefits the consumer and to remain ahead of its competitors.  The technology of VOD came after the DVD (Anderson, 2004).  Just like the DVD was a more convenient (better) evolution of the video cassette, the VOD was a more convenient (better) evolution of the DVD.  However the VOD did not immediately lead to the obsolescence of the DVD.  They both found a place in the market and continue to compete for a niche in the consumer market.  For example, DVD’s have a niche market with children and educational settings.  Young children often want to watch the same program repeatedly, thus the durability of the DVD meets this need.  Similarly, individuals who reside in geographic areas with limited cable or internet service will find the disk-based recording of a DVD more reliable and user friendly.  On the other hand, persons who just want to view something once or one the fly will find the ability to instantly access the VOD more preferable.  Identifying the respective niche markets and evolving their respective technologies to meet their needs is important to the continued presence of DVDs and VOD in the technology market place.

•  Where do you think DVDs and video on demand are on the four criteria of McLuhan’s tetrad?

Below are tetrads of the DVD and VOD: 

Both technologies enhance accessibility to this form of entertainment and promote family time and groups viewing of programs/movies. While the focus is on promoting the family (or small group) unit, both the DVD and VOD have a potentially negative impact on “big” business – such as movie theaters and the movie making industry.  Here are some articles that detail these implications: 

• DVD Downturn panics filmmakers
• Film industry...financial impact
• Impact...film industry today

Both the DVD and the VOD have the potential to revolutionize the movie industry.  The question is what technology will best meet the needs of its niche consumer base while maintaining a collaborative working relationship with the mainstream movie making industry.  On the other-hand, there may be another yet to emerge technology that will obsolete both DVD and VOD.  `

References:

Anderson, C. (2004). Tech’s long tail [Video]. Retrieved 2/2/2011 from  http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/chris_anderson_of_wired_on_tech_s_long_tail.htmlchris_anderson_of_wired_on_tech_s_long_tail.html

Thornburg, D. D. (2009). Increasing returns and red queens. Laureate Education, Inc. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=4199715&Survey=1&47=5797856&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1

Thornburg, D. (2008). Red Queens, butterflies, and strange attractors; Imperfect lenses into emergent technologies. Lake Barrington, IL: Thornburg Center for Space Exploration.

Module 4: Second Life as a disruptive technology

Second life has the potential to be a disruptive technology by giving the individual an ability to create an alternative persona.  Human being are complex social creatures, each created with a uniquely combined set of genetic material which manifests as appearance, personality and individual attributes and characteristics that are part of our social-cultural interaction with others. But a person’s avatar in Second life can change one’s appearance, attitude, placement in family or social/community structures and much more.  Choice and not natural  selection and genetics determine who you will be.

One of my concerns about virtual world, especially when used by vulnerable populations (i.e. children, individuals with medical or physical challenges, mentally ill, etc) may lead to a false sense of reality.  For example – a Virtual Ability Island  – begins with the narrator being excited that she can walk, run and fly.  She also mentions that she can “swim with the fish” and breathe underwater.  We subsequently learn that she has MS (Multiple Sclerosis) – therefore the ability to walk and run allows her to regain skills that the disease has taken away.  However, swimming with the fish and breathing underwater are not human skills.  So….what happens if she believes this is possible and blurs the distinction between the virtual and real worlds???

In another discussion second life is described as a “marketer’s paradise” (Web Link) .  A follow-up from the  Burlington Free Press discusses the Vermont tourism department using second life to depict a virtual Vermont vacation complete with beautiful scenery, exciting skiing, wandering wildlife, and a visit to the gold-domed capitol.  If it really is that realistic, why would I deal with the TSA pat-down at the airport and the travel time to visit Vermont in person?

Finally a more news oriented article from Forbes Magazine outlines some of the down-sides of networked technologies, one of the major one being the loss of privacy and the compromising of what make us uniquely human.

In terms of what second life displaced – I think it displaced the art of intrapersonal and interpersonal relationships.  It allows us to avoid learning how to come to know and to be responsible for our own being and for the social impact of our existence and action/inaction on the well-being of others.  If I shoot someone in second life, they can repel the bullet, and in the end we may even become friends recognizing that our difference was only a misunderstanding.  However, in the real world or our first life – that bullet has a lasting and real impact both on the person who did the shooting and the person who was shot.  Having a technology that allows behavior without consequences has the potential for significant disruption within society and on global well-being.

I am not a user of Second Life and have not been able to undertand what it offers.  A number of years ago, I did become interested in Second Life and even attended a number of professional presentations, but the consensus of opinion was the difficulty to program the site as well as the cost involved to purchase an island and the associated features.  Thus, I lost interest.  Also in my field - teaching nursing - we have virtual environment with high fidelity simulators which allow the real person to interact in simulated situations with other real people.  In health care - even when the patient and the provider are at different sites (i.e. tele-medicine), the persons need to relate on a human level.  Therefore I forsee limited use of second life in the education of health care providers.